Court backs ex-Army sepoy’s pension claim after 31 years, says disability benefits must be interpreted liberally

The Rajasthan High Court recently granted disability pension to a former Army sepoy who was discharged in 1995 and approached the court for relief after a delay of 14 years, observing that disability pension schemes are meant to support servicemen who have served the nation with devotion and dedication but are discharged in difficult circumstances.

Justices Sudesh Bansal and Ravi Chirania noted that although the ex-sepoy was hospitalised twice during service for a neurological disorder, Army authorities neither subjected him to a Release Medical Board (RMB) before discharge nor recorded his medical history in the discharge documents.

“The provisions for grant of disability/ invalid pension are in the nature of a beneficial scheme, intended to provide succour to servicemen in hard times, who have been discharged from service after having served the nation with devotion and dedication. Therefore, a liberal approach must be adopted while construing these beneficial provisions relating to the grant of disability/ invalid pension or gratuity,” the June 8 order read.

Justices Sudesh Bansal and Ravi Chirania were hearing a petition filed by former sepoy Om Prakash.

The high court was hearing a petition filed by former sepoy Om Prakash challenging an August 2022 order of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), which had rejected his claim for disability pension.

Pension provisions meant to aid servicemen

The high court noted that the petitioner had served in the Army for more than 10 years and 11 months and had suffered from radial nerve palsy, a neurological disorder diagnosed during service.

Observing that pension provisions for disabled and invalided servicemen are beneficial in nature, the court reiterated that they must be interpreted liberally rather than restrictively.

The bench further noted that although the petitioner had been awarded five red ink entries, he was also suffering from a neurological disorder at the time of his discharge.

Given his medical condition, the authorities should have dealt with the matter more sympathetically, the court observed.

The court mentioned that awarding four or more red ink entries cannot be considered as a mandate for discharge from service.

While the petitioner sought the constitution of a medical board to assess his disability, the court declined the request.

The high court observed that more than three decades had elapsed since his discharge in 1995, rendering such an exercise largely redundant.

Instead, it held that the petitioner’s entitlement to an invalid pension should be assessed based on the medical records and other material already available on record.

The high court further found that the tribunal had erred in examining the petitioner’s entitlement to regular pension, which requires 15 years of qualifying service, instead of considering his claim for an invalid pension, for which 10 years of qualifying service is sufficient.

Since the petitioner had admittedly completed more than 10 years of service, the court held that the eligibility requirement stood satisfied.

The court also rejected the objection regarding delay, observing that the matter involved a continuing cause of action relating to pensionary benefits and not the revival of a stale claim.

Discharged without RMB

It was placed on record that the petitioner was an ex-sepoy of the Army. He was enrolled in the Army Service Corps on June 13, 1984, and was discharged from service by the authorities by an order dated June 1, 1995 considering him an undesirable soldier.

It was noted that the petitioner served in the Army for a period of more than 10 years. During this period of Army service, petitioner allegedly suffered disability, primarily on account of his posting at stations having adverse climatic conditions and hostile weather.

Subsequently, the petitioner was hospitalised in an Army hospital and remained admitted there for around seven days in November 1993, where he was diagnosed with a disease called radial nerve palsy, a neurotic disorder.

Story continues below this ad

The condition of the petitioner was mentioned in the discharge slip dated November 12, 1993, issued by the Army Hospital. Again, the petitioner allegedly remained hospitalised in the military hospital for around a month from December 1993 to January 1994 on account of the same disorder.

Thereafter, the petitioner allegedly got hospitalised on May 31, 1995, a day before issuance of his order of discharge from service. However, this time the authorities allegedly failed to conduct a medical examination of the petitioner to assess his disability, and without subjecting him to any Release Medical Board, he was allegedly discharged from service by an order dated June 1, 1995.

The petitioner challenged the order of discharge by filing a writ petition before the high court in 2009, which transferred the same to the Armed Forces Tribunal.

After considering the matter, the tribunal, by its final order dated August 16, 2022, dismissed the original application of the petitioner as a whole. Aggrieved by the final order passed by the tribunal, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

Story continues below this ad

Arguments

Representing the petitioner, advocate Aslam Khan highlighted that in the certificate of service of petitioner/discharge order, the relevant column of medical category of the petitioner was left blank to conceal the disease of the petitioner and the actual reason for his discharge from service.

It was further submitted that the petitioner had suffered disability/ sickness during the tenure of his Army service, which was attributable to and aggravated by service.

According to counsel, it was a clear case of discharge of the petitioner from service on account of his disability, and since the petitioner has served in the Army for a period of more than 10 years, he should be granted disability/ invalid pension

Appearing for the state, advocate Gaurav Jain submitted that the petitioner was awarded five punishments at different points of time, which rendered him an inefficient and undisciplined soldier in the Army.

Story continues below this ad

Hence, he added that the petitioner was rightly discharged from service, and the order of his discharge has been rightly affirmed by the tribunal.