Supreme Court settles disability pension eligibility for army personnel invalided due to service-related conditions: Bijender Singh vs. Union of India (23 April 2025)

Date of the Judgment: April 23, 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 549

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

Can an army personnel who was in good health at the time of joining the army be denied disability pension if he is discharged due to a medical condition that arose during his service? The Supreme Court addressed this question in the case of Bijender Singh vs. Union of India, concerning the eligibility for disability pension for army personnel who are invalided out of service due to conditions arising from their military service. The court examined the regulations and rules governing disability pensions, emphasizing the importance of presuming that any deterioration in health during service is attributable to military service. The bench, comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, delivered the judgment.

Case Background:

The appellant, Bijender Singh, was enrolled in the army on September 30, 1985. He was invalided out of service with effect from August 14, 1989, due to a low medical category resulting from generalized tonic clonic seizure, assessed at less than 20% by the Invaliding Medical Board. Bijender Singh contended that he was in good health upon joining the army and that his disability arose during his posting at the Siachen glacier from May 1988 to September 20, 1988. The onset of the disability was noted from October 9, 1988.

The Invaliding Medical Board, in its proceedings dated July 12, 1989, opined that the disability was not attributable to or aggravated by military service and assessed the disability for a period of two years. Consequently, Bijender Singh was granted a disability pension consisting only of the service element since his disability was assessed at less than 20% and was not considered attributable to or aggravated by military service.

Subsequent Re-Survey Medical Boards held on August 7, 1993, June 23, 1998, and June 28, 2002, consistently assessed the disability at around 15 to 19%, noting that the disability was for life. Bijender Singh submitted representations on August 7, 2010, and February 5, 2013, requesting that his disability be accepted as attributable to and aggravated by military service, and that he be granted disability pension at 50% with effect from January 1, 1996. However, these representations received no response.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings:

Bijender Singh initially approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 2322 of 2013. By order dated May 13, 2013, the Tribunal directed the respondents to take a decision on his representations by passing a speaking order within four months. Pursuant to this order, the respondents rejected Bijender Singh’s claim for disability pension on July 30, 2013.

Aggrieved by this rejection, Bijender Singh filed O.A. No. 3977 of 2013 before the Tribunal, seeking to quash the order dated July 30, 2013, and the recommendation of the Invaliding Medical Board. He requested a direction to the respondents to release the disability element of disability pension at the rate of 50% with effect from January 1, 1996, along with 18% interest.

The Tribunal, vide its order dated February 26, 2016, dismissed O.A. No. 3977 of 2013, holding that Bijender Singh’s disability was less than 20% and that the Invaliding Medical Board and Re-Survey Medical Boards had observed that the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service.

Bijender Singh then filed R.A. No. 20 of 2016, seeking a review of the order dated February 26, 2016, contending that the Tribunal had not considered the judgments he relied upon. The Tribunal dismissed the review application on January 22, 2018, stating that the impugned order was well-considered and that there was no error apparent on the face of the record to justify a review. The Tribunal also declined Bijender Singh’s request for grant of leave to appeal.

Legal Framework:

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions and rules:

✓ Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961:

Regulation 173: Specifies the primary conditions for the grant of disability pension, stating that it may be granted to an individual invalided out of service due to a disability attributable to or aggravated by military service, assessed at 20% or over.

“173. Unless otherwise specifically provided a disability pension consisting of service element and disability element may be granted to an individual who is invalided out of service on account of a disability which is attributable to or aggravated by military service in non -battle casualty and is assessed at 20 per cent or over.”

Regulation 183: States that disability pension consists of service element and disability element. If an individual is invalided out of service before completing their service period due to a disability attributable to or aggravated by military service and assessed below 20%, they will be granted an award equal to the service element of disability pension.

“183. The disability pension consists of two elements viz. service element and disability element, which shall be assessed as under: – (1) Service element … (2) Disability element … In case where an individual is invalidated out of service before completion of his prescribed engagement/service limit on account of disability which is attributable to or aggravated by military service and is assessed below 20%, he will be granted an award equal to service element of disability pension determined in the manner given in Regulation 183 of the Pension Regulations for the Army Part I (1961)….”

✓ Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 (Appendix II):

Rule 4: Invaliding from service is a necessary condition for grant of disability pension. An individual in a lower medical category at the time of release will be treated as invalidated from service.

Rule 5: Establishes presumptions for entitlement to casualty pensionary awards, stating that a member is presumed to have been in sound physical and mental condition upon entering service, and any subsequent deterioration in health is due to service.

“5. The approach to the question of entitlement to casualty pensionary awards and evaluation of disabilities shall be based on the following presumptions: Prior to and During Service (a) member is presumed to have been in sound physical and mental condition upon entering service except as to physical disabilities noted or recorded at the time of entrance. (b) In the event of his subsequently being discharged from service on medical grounds any deterioration in his health which has taken place is due to service.”

Rule 9: Clarifies that the onus of proof is on the authority, not the claimant. A disabled member shall not be required to prove entitlement to pension and will receive the benefit of any reasonable doubt.

“9. The claimant shall not be called upon to prove the conditions of entitlements. He/ she will receive the benefit of any reasonable doubt. This benefit will be given more liberally to the claimants in field/afloat service cases.”

Rule 14(b): States that a disease leading to an individual’s discharge will be deemed to have arisen in service if no note of it was made at the time of acceptance for military service, unless medical opinion states otherwise with stated reasons.

“14. In respect of diseases, the following rule will be observed: (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.”

✓ Instructions dated January 31, 2001, issued by the Ministry of Defence:

Deals with the implementation of government decisions regarding disability pension for armed forces personnel retiring or being invalided on or after January 1, 1996. It categorizes cases based on the causes of death or disability and specifies the extent of disability for computing the disability element.

✓ Letter dated July 20, 2006, from the Adjutant General’s Branch, Integrated Headquarters of Ministry of Defence (Army):

Deals with the revision of rules and procedures regarding the grant of disability pension. It mentions that if the resultant disability is attributable to service and assessed at 20% or more (or 01% or more in cases post-January 1, 1996), further action would be taken as per the specified clauses. This letter removed the disability cap of 20% in respect of invalidment due to disability attributable to military service cases post January 1, 1996.

✓ Letter dated January 19, 2010, from the Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare, Ministry of Defence:

Extended the concept of broad branding of percentage of disability/war injury to officers and armed forces personnel who were invalided out of service prior to January 1, 1996, and are in receipt of disability/war injury pension as on July 1, 2009. However, it clarified that cases where the disability element was not allowed for disability being accepted as less than 20% would not be reopened.

Arguments:

Arguments by the Appellant:

✓ The orders of the Tribunal are unsustainable because another bench of the Tribunal had allowed a similar case by granting disability pension to an applicant who was similarly placed.

✓ The orders are contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Dharamvir Singh Vs. Union of India, Union of India Vs. Rajbir Singh, and Union of India Vs. Angad Singh Titaria. The Tribunal ignored these binding precedents.

✓ The disease or disability leading to an individual’s discharge should be deemed to have arisen in service if no note of it was made at the time of entry into military service. The medical opinion must provide cogent reasons why the disease or disability is not attributable to military service.

✓ The Tribunal did not consider whether the disease suffered by the appellant was attributable to or aggravated by military service, focusing instead on whether the disability was at 20% or above.

✓ The Tribunal overlooked instructions dated January 31, 2001, which provided for rounding off disability less than 50% to 50%. The condition of minimum 20% disability was abrogated with effect from January 1, 1996, and the artificial cut-off date has been set aside by the Supreme Court in K.J.S. Buttar Vs. Union of India.

✓ The Tribunal failed to appreciate the letter dated July 20, 2006, of the Ministry of Defence, clarifying that even if a person has been invalided out from service with 1% disability, he would still be entitled to commuting the benefit of disability element at the rate of 50%.

Arguments by the Respondents:

✓ The case of the appellant was duly considered, and since his disability was assessed at less than 20%, he could not be granted the disability element of disability pension.

✓ The appellant was provided an opportunity to prefer an appeal against the rejection of disability pension, but instead, he submitted a representation to the Government of India, which was considered and rejected.

✓ The disease or disability of the appellant was assessed by the Medical Board as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in the judgment. However, the primary issue before the Court was whether the appellant was entitled to the disability element of disability pension, considering that his disability was assessed at less than 20% and the Invaliding Medical Board had opined that it was not attributable to or aggravated by military service.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court: “The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues”

Authorities:

The Supreme Court relied on several cases, rules, and regulations to arrive at its decision. These include:

✓ Dharamvir Singh Vs. Union of India, (2013) 7 SCC 316: This case examined whether a member of the armed forces can be presumed to have been in sound physical and mental condition upon entering service in the absence of any noted disability or disease. The Court reiterated that disability pension is to be granted to an individual invalided from service due to a disability attributable to or aggravated by military service and assessed at 20% or over. The Court also emphasized that if no note of any disability or disease was made at the time of the individual’s acceptance for military service, a disease that led to the individual’s discharge would be deemed to have arisen in service.

✓ Union of India Vs. Rajbir Singh, (2015) 12 SCC 264: The Court outlined guiding principles from a conjoint reading of Rules 5, 9, and 14 of the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982. These principles include the presumption that a member is in sound physical and mental condition upon entering service, any deterioration in health is presumed to be due to military service, and the disease leading to discharge will be deemed to have arisen in service if not noted at the time of acceptance for military service.

✓ Union of India Vs. Angad Singh Titaria, (2015) 12 SCC 257: This case was cited along with Dharamvir Singh and Rajbir Singh to support the appellant’s argument that the Tribunal’s order was contrary to established law.

✓ K.J.S. Buttar Vs. Union of India, (2011) 11 SCC 429: The Court examined para 7.2 of the instructions dated 31.01.2001, which provided that where the disability was assessed between 50% and 75%, it should be treated as 75%. The Court held that there would be a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution if those who retired/were invalided before 01.01.1996 were denied the same benefits as given to those who retired after that date.

✓ Sukhvinder Singh Vs. Union of India, (2014) 14 SCC 364: The Court noted that the relevant Rules and Regulations did not set out the medical parameters to be considered by the Invaliding Medical Boards, which could lead to arbitrariness. The Court emphasized that any disability not recorded at the time of recruitment must be presumed to have been caused subsequently and, unless proved to the contrary, to be a consequence of military service.

✓ Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961: Regulation 173 and Regulation 183 were specifically cited to define the conditions and amounts of disability pension.

✓ Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982: Rules 4, 5, 9, and 14(b) were cited to establish the presumptions and conditions for entitlement to disability pension.

✓ Instructions dated 31.01.2001 of the Ministry of Defence: These instructions provided for rounding off of disability less than 50% to 50% and were considered in the context of determining pensionary benefits.

✓ Letter dated 20.07.2006 of the Adjutant General’s Branch, Integrated Headquarters of Ministry of Defence (Army): This letter removed the disability cap of 20% in respect of invalidment due to disability attributable to military service cases post 01.01.1996.

✓ Letter dated 19.01.2010 of the Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare, Ministry of Defence: This letter extended the concept of broad branding of percentage of disability/war injury to officers and armed forces personnel who were invalided out of service prior to 01.01.1996.

Judgment:

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ Dharamvir Singh Vs. Union of India [CITATION]: The Court used this authority to reinforce the principle that disability pension should be granted if the disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service. It also highlighted that if there is no record of the disease at the time of entry into service, it is presumed to have arisen during service.

✓ Union of India Vs. Rajbir Singh [CITATION]: This case was used to emphasize the legal presumptions in favor of the soldier, including that the soldier was in sound health at the time of entry into service and that any deterioration in health is attributable to military service.

✓ K.J.S. Buttar Vs. Union of India [CITATION]: The Court relied on this case to support the argument that denying the same benefits to those who retired/were invalided before 01.01.1996 as given to those who retired after that date would violate Article 14 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the Tribunal and directed the respondents to grant the disability element of disability pension to the appellant at the rate of 50% with effect from January 1, 1996, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum until payment. The directions were to be carried out within three months from the date of the judgment.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?:

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the legal principles and presumptions established in previous judgments and regulations. The Court emphasized that there is a presumption that a member of the armed forces is in sound physical and mental condition at the time of entry into service if there is no note or record to the contrary. In the event of subsequent discharge from service on medical grounds, any deterioration in health would be presumed to be due to military service. The burden is on the employer to rebut this presumption.

The Court also considered the beneficial nature of disability pension provisions, which ought to be interpreted liberally to benefit those who have been sent home with a disability. The Court highlighted that a soldier cannot be asked to prove that the disease was contracted by him on account of military service or was aggravated by the same. The fact that the member was found fit to serve in the army gives rise to a presumption that he was disease-free at the time of his entry into service.

Fact:Law

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by both the factual aspects of the case and the legal principles and precedents. The Court considered the factual aspects of the case, such as the appellant’s medical condition, his service record, and the opinions of the medical boards. However, the Court also relied heavily on legal principles and precedents, such as the presumption of sound health at entry, the burden of proof on the employer, and the beneficial nature of disability pension provisions.

Logical Reasoning

1. Soldier Enrolled in Army in Good Health

↓

2. No Note of Disease at Time of Entry

↓

3. Disease Occurred During Military Service

↓

4. Invalided Out of Service

↓

5. Entitled to Disability Pension

↓

6. Disability Assumed Above 20%

↓

7. Grant Disability Pension at 50%

Key Takeaways:

✓ Any disability not recorded at the time of recruitment must be presumed to have been caused subsequently and, unless proved to the contrary, to be a consequence of military service.

✓ The morale of the armed forces requires absolute and undiluted protection, and if an injury leads to loss of service without any recompense, this morale would be severely undermined.

✓ Any disease or disability for which a member of the armed forces is invalided out of service would have to be assumed to be above 20% and attract a grant of 50% disability pension.

Directions:

The Supreme Court directed the respondents to grant the disability element of disability pension to the appellant at the rate of 50% with effect from January 1, 1996, onwards for life. The arrears shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum until payment. The above directions shall be carried out by the respondents within three months from today.

Development of Law:

The ratio decidendi of the case is that if a member of the armed forces is invalided out of service due to a disease that occurred during military service and there is no record of the disease at the time of entry into service, the member is entitled to disability pension, and the disability is assumed to be above 20%, attracting a grant of 50% disability pension. This decision reinforces the existing legal position and clarifies the presumptions and burdens of proof in such cases.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Bijender Singh vs. Union of India reaffirms the rights of army personnel who are invalided out of service due to disabilities arising from their military service. The Court emphasized the importance of presuming that any deterioration in health during service is attributable to military service and that the burden of proving otherwise rests on the employer. This decision ensures that soldiers who suffer disabilities during their service are adequately compensated and protected.