Supreme Court Denies Disability Pension to Soldier Discharged on Administrative Grounds: Union of India vs. Ex. Sep. R. Munusamy (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 19 July 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 638

Judges: Indira Banerjee, J. and V. Ramasubramanian, J.

Can a soldier discharged from service on administrative grounds, not related to any medical condition, claim disability pension? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, overturning a decision by the Armed Forces Tribunal. The court held that a soldier discharged as an “undesirable soldier” is not entitled to disability pension, even if a medical condition was present at the time of discharge. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice V. Ramasubramanian, with Justice Banerjee authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The respondent, R. Munusamy, was enrolled in the Indian Army on 26th March 1987. He was discharged from service on 5th April 1997, on administrative grounds, as an “undesirable soldier” under Rule 13(3) III(v) of the Army Rules, 1954. At the time of his discharge, a Release Medical Board found him to have a condition described as “Right Partial Seizure with Secondary Generalization 345,” which was assessed at 20% disability for two years. However, the board determined that this condition was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. Munusamy did not challenge his discharge but applied for a disability pension, which was rejected by the Office of the Chief CDA(P), Allahabad, on 19th May 1998. His subsequent appeal was also rejected on 11th January 2000. Almost 20 years later, on 25th August 2017, Munusamy sent a legal notice claiming disability pension, citing parity with other cases. This claim was again rejected, leading him to file an application before the Armed Forces Tribunal.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Armed Forces Tribunal initially directed the appellants to convene a Resurvey/Review Medical Board to examine the respondent and assess the degree of disability. The Resurvey Medical Board assessed the disability at 20% for life, with effect from 08.04.2019 and also assessed the degree of disability for the intervening period from 27.03.1989 and 25.03.1989 @ 20%. The Armed Forces Tribunal allowed the application for disability pension, restricting arrears to a period of three years prior to the date of application before the Tribunal. The Union of India appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of the Army Rules, 1954, specifically Rule 13(3) III(v), under which the respondent was discharged as an “undesirable soldier.” The court also examined the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982, particularly Rule 14, which deals with diseases and disabilities in relation to military service. Rule 14(b) states that a disease leading to discharge is generally deemed to have arisen in service if not noted at the time of acceptance into military service. However, this presumption is rebuttable if medical opinion suggests the disease could not have been detected earlier. Rule 14(c) further requires that the conditions of military service must have contributed to the onset of the disease for it to be considered attributable to service.

Relevant provisions of the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982:

• “14. Diseases.- In respect of diseases, the following rule will be observed –
  (a) Cases in which it is established that conditions of military service did not determine or contribute to the onset of the disease but influenced the subsequent courses of the disease will fall for acceptance on the basis of aggravation.
  (b) A disease which has led to an individual’s discharge or death will ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in service, if no note of it was made at the time of the individual’s acceptance for military service. However, if medical opinion holds, for reasons to be stated, that the disease could not have been detected on medical examination prior to acceptance for service, the disease will not be deemed to have arisen during service .
  (c) If a disease is accepted as having arisen in service, it must also be established that the conditions of military service determined or contributed to the onset of the disease and that the conditions were due to the circumstances of duty in military service.”

Arguments

Appellants’ (Union of India) Arguments:

• The respondent was discharged on administrative grounds as an “undesirable soldier” under Rule 13(3) III(v) of the Army Rules, 1954, and not due to any medical disability.
• The medical condition of the respondent was found to be neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service by the Release Medical Board.
• The respondent did not challenge his discharge for 20 years, making his claim for disability pension after such a long delay untenable.
• The judgment in Union of India v. Rajbir Singh [(2015) 12 SCC 264], relied upon by the Tribunal, is not applicable as that case dealt with soldiers invalidated out of service on medical grounds.
• Rule 14(b) of the Entitlement Rules is not attracted as the respondent was not discharged due to any disease or disability.
• Even if a disease is accepted as having arisen in service, it must be established that the conditions of military service contributed to the onset of the disease, as per Rule 14(c) of the Entitlement Rules.

Respondent’s (Ex. Sep. R. Munusamy) Arguments:

• The respondent claimed disability pension based on parity with the cases of Dharamvir Singh and Rajbir Singh.
• The respondent argued that his medical condition existed at the time of his discharge, entitling him to disability pension.
• The respondent contended that his unauthorized absences were due to his medical condition.

Table of Submissions:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the respondent, discharged on administrative grounds as an “undesirable soldier,” is entitled to disability pension.
2. Whether the judgment in Rajbir Singh is applicable to the facts of this case.
3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing a Resurvey Medical Board after 20 years of discharge.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon:

Legal Provisions Considered:

• Rule 13(3) III(v) of the Army Rules, 1954: The rule under which the respondent was discharged as an “undesirable soldier.”
• Rule 14 of the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982: Deals with the conditions under which a disease or disability is considered attributable to military service.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Union of India v. Rajbir Singh [(2015) 12 SCC 264]:* The court distinguished this case, stating it was not applicable to the present matter. The court held that Rajbir Singh dealt with cases of soldiers invalidated out of service on medical grounds, while the present case involved a soldier discharged on administrative grounds.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the respondent was discharged on administrative grounds as an “undesirable soldier,” not due to any medical condition. The court emphasized that the Release Medical Board had found the respondent’s medical condition to be neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. The court also noted the long delay of 20 years in claiming disability pension and the inapplicability of the Rajbir Singh precedent. The court further held that the Tribunal had erred in directing a Resurvey Medical Board after such a long time. The court’s reasoning focused on the procedural aspects of the discharge and the lack of evidence to support the claim that the disability was related to military service.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

The Court rejected the Tribunal’s reasoning that any ailment or disability of a soldier, not noted at the time of recruitment but detected or diagnosed at the time of his discharge or earlier, would entitle the soldier to disability pension. The Court clarified that the onus is not on the employer to prove otherwise. The court emphasized that the conditions of military service must be established to have contributed to the onset of the disease as per Rule 14(c) of the Entitlement Rules. The court also noted that the Resurvey Medical Board did not provide any opinion as contemplated in Rule 14(b) or 14(c) of the Entitlement Rules.

The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal had erred in relying on Rajbir Singh, as that case dealt with invalidation from service due to medical reasons, unlike the present case, where the discharge was on administrative grounds. The court also emphasized that the Tribunal should not have directed a Resurvey Medical Board after 20 years of discharge, especially when the original medical board had already given its opinion. The court’s decision was based on the principle that a soldier discharged on administrative grounds is not automatically entitled to disability pension, even if a medical condition exists.

The court quoted from the judgment:

• “In the considered opinion of this Court, the Tribunal fell in error in passing its order dated 2nd November 2018 directing the Appellants to convene a Resurvey/Review Medical Board at the Military Hospital, Chennai or a designated hospital for the purpose of examining the applicant and assessing the degree of disability due to “Right Partial Seizure with Secondary Generalisation 345” and the probable duration of disability.”
• “The Tribunal does not sit in appeal over the expert opinion of a Medical Board holding that the disability suffered by a soldier was not attributable to or aggravated by military service. There was no reason for the Tribunal not to accept the opinion of the Release Medical Board held on 30th January 1997 and no reasons have been disclosed.”
• “The claim of the Respondent for disability pension should not have been entertained and that too, 20 years after his discharge.”

Key Takeaways

• A soldier discharged on administrative grounds as an “undesirable soldier” is not automatically entitled to disability pension.
• The medical condition of a soldier must be attributable to or aggravated by military service to qualify for disability pension.
• The Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982, particularly Rule 14, must be strictly followed.
• Medical opinions of the Release Medical Board should be given due weightage, and the Tribunal should not act as an appellate body over such opinions.
• Claims for disability pension must be made within a reasonable time after discharge, and long delays may be detrimental to the claim.
• The judgment clarifies that the Rajbir Singh case is not a blanket precedent for all cases of disability pension claims by ex-servicemen.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment and order of the Armed Forces Tribunal. There were no specific directions given by the Supreme Court other than setting aside the impugned judgment.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There are no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a soldier discharged on administrative grounds, not due to any medical condition, is not entitled to disability pension, even if a medical condition exists at the time of discharge. This judgment clarifies that the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982, must be strictly applied, and the conditions of military service must have contributed to the onset of the disease for it to be considered attributable to service. This judgment also clarifies that the Rajbir Singh case is not a blanket precedent for all cases of disability pension claims by ex-servicemen. This judgment reinforces the principle that the medical opinion of the Release Medical Board should be given due weightage.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal by the Union of India, setting aside the Armed Forces Tribunal’s decision. The court held that a soldier discharged on administrative grounds as an “undesirable soldier” is not entitled to disability pension, even if he has a medical condition at the time of discharge. The court emphasized that the medical condition must be attributable to or aggravated by military service for a soldier to be eligible for disability pension. The court also noted the long delay in claiming disability pension and the inapplicability of the Rajbir Singh precedent. This judgment clarifies the conditions under which disability pension can be claimed by ex-servicemen and reinforces the importance of following the Entitlement Rules.