Date of the Judgment: 16 February 2018
Citation: Not Available
Judges: A.K. Sikri, J., Ashok Bhushan, J.
Can military personnel who retired before 2006 claim disability pension? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent judgment, overturning previous restrictions. The court ruled that personnel who were retained in service despite a disability aggravated by military service are eligible for disability pension, even if they retired before 2006. This decision affects numerous veterans who were previously denied benefits. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice A.K. Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Ashok Bhushan.
Case Background
The appellant, Ex. Lt. Col. R.K. Rai, was commissioned into the Regiment of Artillery on 24 December 1982. In 1987, while serving as an Observation Post Officer, he fell ill and was treated at the Military Hospital, Devlali. A Medical Board on 21 January 1988 placed him in a low medical category, attributing his condition to the stress and strain of service. On 27 September 2000, a Medical Re-categorization Board assessed his disability at 50%. In 2002, while posted in Nagaland, another Medical Board on 20 September 2002, reaffirmed his disability at 50%. He applied for premature retirement on 6 February 2003 and was retired on 29 July 2003. A Release Medical Board on 31 March 2004 found that he suffered from primary hypertension, aggravated by the stress of military service, and assessed his disability at 30%.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 24 December 1982 | Appellant commissioned into the Regiment of Artillery. |
| 1987 | Appellant fell ill while serving as Observation Post Officer. |
| 21 January 1988 | Medical Board placed appellant in low medical category due to stress of service. |
| 27 September 2000 | Medical Re-categorization Board assessed disability at 50%. |
| 20 September 2002 | Medical Re-categorization Board reaffirmed disability at 50%. |
| 6 February 2003 | Appellant applied for premature retirement. |
| 29 July 2003 | Appellant retired from service. |
| 31 March 2004 | Release Medical Board assessed disability at 30% due to hypertension aggravated by military service. |
| 20 September 2013 | Armed Forces Tribunal rejected the Original Application. |
| 11 June 2014 | Armed Forces Tribunal rejected the Review Application. |
| 19 May 2017 | Government of India issued order extending disability benefits to pre-2006 retirees. |
| 16 February 2018 | Supreme Court allowed the appeal. |
Course of Proceedings
The appellant filed O.A. No. 25 of 2013 before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Mumbai, seeking disability pension and “AGI Disability.” The Tribunal rejected his application on 20 September 2013, citing that those who took voluntary retirement were not entitled to disability pension based on Regulation 48 and Regulation 50 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961. The Tribunal noted that the Sixth Pay Commission Report allowed disability pension for those retiring on or after 1 January 2006 with a disability of 20% or more, but this did not apply to the appellant. The appellant then filed a Review Petition, which was also rejected on 11 June 2014, based on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India vs. Ajay Wahi (2010) 11 SCC 213.
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of pension regulations for the armed forces and a subsequent government order. The Armed Forces Tribunal initially relied on Regulation 48 and Regulation 50 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, which, as per the Tribunal’s interpretation, denied disability pension to those who took voluntary retirement. However, the Government of India, Ministry of Defence issued an order on 19 May 2017, which extended disability benefits to pre-2006 retirees. The key conditions for eligibility as per this order are:
- The disability must be attributable to or aggravated by military service.
- The individual must have forgone lump sum compensation in lieu of the disability.
- The individual must still be suffering from the same disability, assessed at 20% or more on the date of the order (01 January 2006).
The order also references Ministry of Defence letter No. 4684/DIR(PEN)/2001 dated 14.08.2001, which deals with the procedure for issuing sanctions related to disability attributable to military service.
Arguments
The appellant, appearing in person, argued that the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in O.A. No. 139 of 2009, Lt. Col. P.K. Kapur (Retd.) Vs. Union of India, and other judgments had granted disability pension to officers who took voluntary retirement even before 01 January 2006. He contended that the Principal Bench had struck down Para 2.1 of the Government Circular dated 04 May 2009, which created a discriminatory cut-off date. He further submitted that the government had accepted the judgment in O.A. No. 336 of 2011, Maj. (Retd.) Rajesh Kumar Bhardwaj Vs. Union of India & Ors., and issued an order on 19 May 2017, extending disability pension to those retired or discharged before 01 January 2006. The appellant also stated that his claim for “AGI Disability” was not considered by the Tribunal.
The Union of India argued that a Special Leave Petition (S.L.P.) was pending against one of the judgments relied upon by the appellant. They further contended that the order dated 19 May 2017, had specific conditions, particularly in Para 3, which the appellant did not fulfill.
Respondent No. 5 argued that they were not served notice before the Armed Forces Tribunal and had no opportunity to present their case. They also stated that no material was available regarding the appellant’s claim for “AGI Disability” and that the appellant had already received his due from the Army Group Insurance fund.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s Submission |
✓ Disability pension should be granted to pre-2006 retirees based on Armed Forces Tribunal decisions. ✓ The cut-off date of 01.01.2006 is discriminatory and has been struck down by the Principal Bench. ✓ Government order dated 19.05.2017 extends disability benefits to pre-2006 retirees. ✓ “AGI Disability” claim was not considered by the Tribunal. |
| Union of India’s Submission |
✓ S.L.P. pending against one of the judgments relied on by the appellant. ✓ Appellant does not fulfill conditions of the 19.05.2017 order, particularly Para 3. |
| Respondent No. 5’s Submission |
✓ No notice was served before the Armed Forces Tribunal. ✓ No material available regarding “AGI Disability” claim. ✓ Appellant has received due payment from Army Group Insurance fund. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issues the Court addressed were:
- Whether the appellant, who retired before 01 January 2006, is eligible for disability pension based on the government order dated 19 May 2017.
- Whether the appellant’s claim for “AGI Disability” should be considered.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Eligibility for disability pension for pre-2006 retirees | Allowed | The Court found that the appellant met all the conditions of the 19 May 2017 order: disability aggravated by military service, no lump sum compensation received, and disability assessed at 30% on 31 March 2004. |
| Claim for “AGI Disability” | Not considered in these appeals | The Court noted that the claim was not pressed before the Tribunal or in the Review Petition. Liberty was given to file a review petition before the Tribunal if the claim was pressed and not considered. |
Authorities
The Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Lt. Col. P.K. Kapur (Retd.) Vs. Union of India, O.A. No. 139 of 2009 | Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi | Cited by the appellant to argue that the cut-off date was discriminatory. |
| Maj. (Retd.) Rajesh Kumar Bhardwaj Vs. Union of India & Ors., O.A. No. 336 of 2011 | Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi | Cited by the appellant to show that the government had accepted the extension of disability benefits to pre-2006 retirees. |
| Union of India Vs. Ajay Wahi (2010) 11 SCC 213 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon by the Tribunal to reject the Review Petition, but not followed by the Supreme Court in this case. |
| Government Order dated 19 May 2017, Ministry of Defence | Government of India | The primary basis for the Supreme Court’s decision to grant disability pension to the appellant. |
| Ministry of Defence letter No. 4684/DIR(PEN)/2001 dated 14.08.2001 | Government of India | Referenced in the 19 May 2017 order, regarding the procedure for issuing sanctions related to disability attributable to military service. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal. The Court held that the appellant was entitled to disability pension as per the government order dated 19 May 2017. The Court directed the respondents to process the appellant’s claim, while also allowing them to assess the appellant’s current disability percentage.
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s claim for disability pension based on pre-2006 retirement | Accepted, as the court found that the appellant fulfilled all the conditions of the 19 May 2017 order. |
| Appellant’s claim for “AGI Disability” | Not considered in these appeals. Liberty was given to file a review petition before the Tribunal if the claim was pressed and not considered. |
| Union of India’s argument that the appellant does not fulfill the conditions of the 19.05.2017 order | Rejected, as the court found that the appellant met all the conditions. |
| Union of India’s argument that a S.L.P. is pending against the judgment relied upon by the appellant | Not relevant to the court’s decision, as the court relied on the 19 May 2017 order. |
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities in its reasoning:
- The court relied on the Government Order dated 19.05.2017. The court noted that the government order extended the benefit of disability pension to Armed Forces Personnel who were retired, discharged from service even before 01.01.2006.
- The court considered the Release Medical Board proceeding dated 31.03.2004 which stated that the Primary Hypertension of the appellant is aggravated by Army service “due to stresses & strains of military service”.
- The court also noted that the Medical Board had assessed the disability of the appellant at 30% which was permanent in nature.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the government order dated 19 May 2017, which extended disability benefits to pre-2006 retirees. The court emphasized that the appellant met all the conditions of this order. The court also relied on the Medical Board’s assessment that the appellant’s hypertension was aggravated by military service and that his disability was 30% and permanent. The fact that the appellant had not received any lump sum compensation was also a key factor.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Government Order dated 19 May 2017 | 40% |
| Medical Board’s assessment of disability | 30% |
| No lump sum compensation received | 30% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 40% |
| Law | 60% |
The court’s reasoning was based on the following logical flow:
The court did not explicitly discuss alternative interpretations but focused on the clear language of the government order and the appellant’s fulfillment of its conditions.
The court’s decision was based on the following reasons:
- The appellant met all the conditions of the government order dated 19 May 2017.
- The Medical Board had determined that the appellant’s hypertension was aggravated by military service.
- The appellant’s disability was assessed at 30% and was permanent.
- The appellant had not received any lump sum compensation in lieu of disability.
The court quoted the following from the judgment:
“Now, the President is pleased to decide that all Pre- 2006 Armed Forces Personnel who were retained in service despite disability and retired voluntarily or otherwise will be allowed disability element/war injury element in addition to retiring/ service pension or retiring/ service gratuity, subject to the condition that their disability was accepted as attributable to or aggravated by military service and had foregone lump sum compensation in lieu of that disability.”
“From the above, it is clear that disability of the appellant was aggravated by military service and percentage of disability was 30%.”
“The appellant thus fulfils all the three conditions for grant of disability pension. In above view of the matter, we are of the view that appellant is fully covered by the order of the Government dated 19.05.2017.”
There were no dissenting opinions in this case.
Key Takeaways
- Military personnel who were retained in service despite a disability aggravated by military service and retired before 2006 are eligible for disability pension.
- The key conditions for eligibility are: the disability must be attributable to or aggravated by military service, the individual must have foregone lump sum compensation, and the disability must be assessed at 20% or more on the date of effect of the 19 May 2017 order.
- The government order dated 19 May 2017, has been given full effect by the Supreme Court, ensuring that the benefits are extended to deserving veterans.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the respondents to process the appellant’s claim for disability pension as per the government order dated 19 May 2017. The respondents were also given the liberty to assess the appellant’s current disability percentage through a Medical Board.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that pre-2006 retirees who meet the conditions of the government order dated 19 May 2017, are entitled to disability pension. This decision changes the previous position of law which denied disability pension to those who took voluntary retirement before 2006.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Ex. Lt. Col. R.K. Rai vs. Union of India is a significant victory for veterans who retired before 2006. The court’s reliance on the government order dated 19 May 2017, ensures that disability benefits are extended to those who were previously denied. This decision reinforces the principle that disability benefits should be provided to those whose conditions are aggravated by military service, regardless of their retirement date.