Medical Board’s Opinion Not Sacrosanct – Bombay High Court Upholds Tribunal's Orders Granting Disability Pension to Soldiers Suffering from ‘Lifestyle Diseases’

“Mere Branding of a Disease as ‘Constitutional’ or ‘Lifestyle-Related’ is Not Enough to Deny Disability Pension”, In a significant ruling with far-reaching implications for service personnel across the Armed Forces, the Bombay High Court emphatically held that the opinion of the Medical Board—especially when denying disability pension on the ground that the disease is “constitutional” or “lifestyle-related”—is not immune from judicial scrutiny.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by the Union of India challenging orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Mumbai, which had directed payment of disability pensions to Army and Navy personnel suffering from conditions such as hypertension, diabetes, leukemia, panic disorder, and hearing loss.

“The opinion of the Medical Board is not sacrosanct. It is not immune to judicial review. Mere branding of a disease as ‘constitutional’ or ‘not connected with service’ without reasons renders denial of disability pension arbitrary,” the Court ruled.

Presumption in Favour of Attributability: Burden Lies on Employer to Rebut

Emphasizing long-established jurisprudence, the Court held that a serviceman is presumed to be medically fit at the time of entry into the Armed Forces unless a pre-existing disease is recorded.

“Where no disease is noted at the time of entry, deterioration during service raises a presumption of attributability or aggravation by service. The onus is on the employer to prove that the disease is wholly unrelated to service,” the Court observed, citing Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India (2013) 7 SCC 316.

Even where diseases manifest during peaceful postings, the causal link cannot be brushed aside without reasons, particularly when the individual has served in stressful and operational roles. The Court clarified that “constitutional” or “lifestyle-related” labels cannot be determinative without analyzing service records, deployment, and medical history.

Diabetes Mellitus in Infantry Officer Deemed Aggravated by Stressful Service

The lead case pertained to Lt. Col. S.K. Rathore, who had served in the Army for over 23 years, including postings in Ladakh, Manipur, and during Operation Parakram, before being prematurely retired in 2003 due to diabetes mellitus and hypertension.

Despite the Medical Board’s conclusion that diabetes was a constitutional disorder, the Court noted that his medical records clearly stated:

“Health was affected due to continued difficult service conditions as an Infantry Officer. He was on special duty during Operation Parakram… the disability was aggravated by service.”

The Court held that the Tribunal was right in overriding the Medical Board’s conclusion, as it had failed to record intelligible reasons

Disability Pension Not Confined to Invalidation Only

Rejecting the Centre’s contention that disability pension is admissible only when a serviceman is invalided out of service, the Court reaffirmed that personnel retiring on superannuation or completing tenure in low medical category are equally entitled, provided the disability is attributable to or aggravated by service and is assessed at 20% or more.

This view is consistent with Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 and Regulation 37 of the 2008 Regulations, as well as binding precedents like Ram Avtar v. Union of India (2014) 14 SCC 588.

Medical Board Must Give Reasons – Mechanical Opinions Not Enough

The judgment unequivocally held that the Medical Board must record cogent reasons when denying disability pension:

“A bald or mechanical opinion that the disease is not connected with military service cannot justify denial of disability benefits. The absence of reasons strikes at the root of the decision.”

Citing Rajumon T.M. v. Union of India (2019) 10 SCC 646, the Court underscored that such opinion, devoid of reasoning, renders the entire administrative action unsustainable

No Drastic Change Under Pension Entitlement Rules, 2008 – Liberal Interpretation Mandated

While the Union of India argued that the Pension Entitlement Rules, 2008 introduced stricter norms and negated prior presumptions under the 1982 Rules, the Court flatly rejected the claim:

“The 2008 Rules do not curtail the benefit of disability pension. Rather, they expand upon it. There is no restrictive departure from the previous regime.”

Notably, Rule 4 of the 2008 Rules affirms that disability pension may be granted to those who retire in low medical category and meet the conditions of attributability/aggravation and 20% disability. Further, Rule 8 clarifies that even post-discharge manifestation of diseases within seven years can be linked to service.

Service in Stressful, Operational Areas Holds Evidentiary Value

Service records indicating postings in field areas, counter-insurgency zones, or high altitudes hold substantial evidentiary value when determining whether diseases were aggravated by service. The Court observed:

“Diseases arising or worsening during or after such service conditions can reasonably be linked to military service.”

In Rathore’s case, the Court emphasized his deployment in Operation Parakram and challenging field postings.

High Court Won’t Interfere Unless Tribunal’s Findings Are Perverse

Refusing to entertain the Centre’s plea for judicial review, the Court reiterated that High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is limited in scope and does not extend to reappreciating evidence unless there is perversity or non-consideration of vital material.

“We do not find any error in the Tribunal’s approach. The Tribunal applied settled principles and interpreted pension laws liberally, as required.”

The Court therefore upheld the decisions of the Armed Forces Tribunal in all cases, including those of Navy personnel.

Disability Pension Is Not a Bounty – It Is Socio-Economic Justice

Quoting the landmark ruling in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 305, the Court emphasized that:

“Pension is not a bounty. It is a measure of socio-economic justice that ensures economic security in the twilight of life.”

Disability pension, especially for military personnel, has a broader purpose—to recognize and compensate for sacrifices in service. The judgment stressed that servicemen cannot be made to prove the impossible, such as how exactly military service caused hypertension or diabetes.

Writ Petitions Dismissed – Tribunal Orders Upheld

Concluding the 93-page judgment, the Court dismissed all the writ petitions filed by the Union of India, vacated all interim orders, and upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal’s findings in favour of the service personnel.

“Except some cosmetic changes, there is no change in the statutory regime under the Pension Entitlement Rules-2008 or the Navy Regulations. The decision of the Tribunal is not liable to interference.”

Date of Decision: 23 January 2026