Labeling A Disease ‘Lifestyle Or Constitutional’ Can’t Be A Reason To Deny Pension: Bombay High Court Slams Army, Navy Medical Boards

“Medical Board’s Opinion Is Not Sacrosanct — It Must Stand Judicial Scrutiny If Bereft Of Cogent Reasons”, Delivering a significant judgment with far-reaching consequences for thousands of veterans, the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by the Union of India challenging disability pension orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), Mumbai in favour of several Army and Navy personnel. In clear terms, the Court held that the opinion of the Release or Invaliding Medical Boards is not immune from judicial review, especially when it is unsupported by valid reasoning and contrary to service records.

Refusing to accept the Centre’s blanket reliance on medical boards’ findings that categorized ailments like diabetes mellitus, hypertension, obesity, psychiatric disorders, leukemia, and dyslipidemia as “constitutional” or “lifestyle-related”, the Court observed:

“Mere labeling of a disease as ‘constitutional’ or ‘lifestyle’ is insufficient to deny disability pension… the opinion of the Medical Board is not sacrosanct, and must be supported by clear, cogent and intelligible reasons.”

The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s liberal interpretation of the Pension Entitlement Rules, 2008, and declared that the entire batch of writ petitions lacked merit and legal substance.

"When No Ailment Is Noted On Entry, Attributability To Service Is Presumed": High Court Reinforces Settled Pension Doctrine

The lead matter before the Full Bench arose from Writ Petition No. 1994 of 2024 concerning Lt. Col. S. K. Rathore, who served in operational zones for over 23 years and was prematurely retired in low medical category after being diagnosed with Diabetes Mellitus and Primary Hypertension. Despite Medical Board proceedings acknowledging that his health had deteriorated during Operation Parakram and field postings in Ladakh, Imphal, and Barmer, the Board termed his diabetes a constitutional disorder, thereby denying him the disability pension. His widow Collen Rathore continued the claim after his demise from pancreatic cancer in 2014.

Rejecting the Army’s stand that “the disease had no causal link with service,” the High Court was categorical:

“When a personnel joins in Shape-I category, the burden is on the employer to show that disease is wholly unrelated to service. It is unrealistic to expect military personnel to prove causal link between hypertension or diabetes and stressful military duty.”

The Court heavily relied on the landmark ruling in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India, 2013, reaffirming that any deterioration of health post-enrolment must be presumed attributable to military service in the absence of contrary proof.

"Pension Is A Right, Not A Charity — Medical Boards Must Give Reasons Or Risk Reversal": High Court Cautions Armed Forces

The Union of India had contended that the Medical Boards' opinion was final, particularly when approved by higher medical authorities, and further argued that the 2008 Rules introduced a more stringent regime, moving away from presumptions under the earlier 1982 Entitlement Rules.

The High Court, however, rejected this interpretation:

“The Pension Entitlement Rules of 2008 do not dilute or restrict entitlement… they clarify and expand the scope of eligibility, retaining the benefit-of-doubt doctrine.”

Referring to Rule 4, Rule 5, and Rule 6 of the 2008 Rules, the Court held that the Rules continue to favour ex-servicemen where diseases arise during or shortly after service, particularly in high-stress or operational conditions. The Court noted that Rule 8 further allows attributability to be established up to seven years post-discharge, thus enhancing the scope, not limiting it.

The Bench made a sharp observation about the non-speaking opinions of the Medical Boards:

“Medical opinions devoid of reasoning strike at the root of administrative justice. It is not a mere formality. The reasons are necessary not only to guide the Pension Sanctioning Authority but also to allow proper judicial review.”

Quoting Rajumon T.M. v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that “requirement to give reasons is critical and decisive”, and the absence of such reasoning can render denial of disability pension legally unsustainable

"Operational Stress, Harsh Climate And Continuous Deployment Worsen So-Called ‘Lifestyle Diseases’": Service Conditions Have Legal Weight

The Full Bench gave particular importance to the nature of service conditions, affirming that postings in field areas, high altitudes, and active operational zones hold substantial evidentiary value.

In Lt. Col. Rathore’s case, the record showed he had been deployed in Imphal, Tuting, Ladakh, and during Operation Parakram. The Medical Board itself noted the stress due to long operational deployment but still denied attributability for diabetes — a contradiction the Court found untenable.

“It is absolutely impossible for a military personnel to prove that he suffers from hypertension or diabetes due to the rigours of military duty. The onus lies on the employer if service records show stressful and difficult postings.”

“Denial Of Disability Pension Based On Unreasoned Medical Board Findings Is Arbitrary”: Court Affirms Liberal Interpretation

The judgment extensively cited Supreme Court precedents, including Dharamvir Singh, Rajbir Singh, Sukhvinder Singh, Bijender Singh, and Ram Avtar, emphasizing that the settled legal position is in favour of granting disability pension unless specific service-excluding reasons are established.

In Bijender Singh, the Supreme Court had clarified:

“If there is no note of disease at entry, it must be presumed that the disease arose due to service unless rebutted. Such presumption cannot be denied merely by calling a disease ‘constitutional’.”

The Bombay High Court held that the AFT’s interpretation was correct, and the Tribunal had rightly relied upon this line of judgments while granting pension.

Even in cases where personnel retired voluntarily or from peace stations, the Court held that if medical records and service history support service-related aggravation, disability pension cannot be denied merely because of the nature of posting or retirement status.

“No Ground To Interfere — Tribunal Orders Based On Law, Not Perverse”: High Court Dismisses Centre’s Challenge

The High Court firmly rejected the Union’s contention that the Tribunal had committed errors warranting writ interference under Article 226.

“There is no perversity or jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s reasoning. The Tribunal rightly applied the law and exercised jurisdiction to scrutinize arbitrary denial of disability benefits.”

All pending interim orders stood vacated, and the batch of writ petitions was dismissed in its entirety.

With this verdict, the Bombay High Court has delivered a powerful reaffirmation of the principles governing disability pensions for ex-servicemen, striking a balance between medical assessments and judicial review, and placing service records and presumption of attributability at the center of entitlement.

Importantly, the Court has clarified that opinions of Medical Boards, unless properly reasoned and based on statutory guidelines, cannot override judicial interpretation of beneficial provisions.

In the words of the Court:

“Pension is not bounty payable at the sweet will of the government. It is a vested right. The military personnel invalided due to disease arising in service must be compensated, not left to suffer legal technicalities and administrative formalities.”

Date of Decision: 23 January 2026