The Supreme Court has dismissed a disability pension claim filed by a former Army officer. The Court held that his brain stroke resulted from his smoking habit and not from military service.
A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale upheld the decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal. Consequently, the Court ruled that the officer was not entitled to disability compensation under the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961.
Court Relies on Pension Regulations and Medical Records
The Bench examined Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961. It also referred to paragraph 6 of the Guide to Medical Officers, 2002.
The Court clarified that compensation cannot be granted for disabilities arising from intemperate use of alcohol, tobacco, drugs, or sexually transmitted diseases. According to the Regulations, such factors remain within an individual’s personal control.
Medical records showed that the appellant smoked ten bidis daily. The Bench recorded this finding clearly. It observed:
“The appellant was in the habit of smoking bidis that too ten bidis per day and it is trite position of medical law that an ischemic stroke occurs when a blood clot or fatty plaque (atherosclerosis) blocks an artery leading to brain, restricting oxygen which reduces blood flow and causing brain tissue damage and the medical opinion categorizing risk factors includes high blood pressure (hypertension), smoking, diabetes, high cholesterol, i.e., dyslipidemia, obesity and atrial fibrillation.”
Therefore, the Court held that the diagnosed condition — “Stroke Ischemic RT MCA TERRITORY” — was neither attributable to service nor aggravated by service conditions. As a result, the officer did not qualify for disability pension.
Bijender Singh Judgment Found Inapplicable
The appellant relied on Bijender Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (2025). However, the Court found the precedent distinguishable.
In Bijender Singh, the claimant had served at the Siachen Glacier. That posting involved extreme high-altitude conditions. In that case, the Court refused to accept the Medical Board’s opinion that the assessed disability of 15–19% was unrelated to service.
In contrast, the present matter involved no such extraordinary service conditions. Therefore, the Bench held that the earlier ruling did not assist the appellant.
Appeal Dismissed
Since the stroke resulted from personal risk factors, the Court concluded that disability pension was not payable under the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961. Accordingly, it dismissed the appeal.
Case Title
Sarevesh Kumar versus Union of India & Ors.
Appearance
For the Appellant:
Mr. Kaushal Yadav, AOR; Mr. Nandlal Kumar Mishra, Advocate; Mr. Onkar Nath Sharma, Advocate; Mr. Ritul Tandon, Advocate; Ms. Naina Garg, Advocate; Ms. Priyanka, Advocate.
For the Respondents:
Mr. Satya Darshi Sanjay, Additional Solicitor General; Mr. Shubh Sharma, Advocate; Mr. Shubham P. Mishra, Advocate; Mr. Khushal Kolwar, Advocate; Ms. Nikita Sethi, Advocate; Mr. Divyam Aggarwal, Advocate; Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR; Mr. Satya Jha, Advocate; Mr. Sudhakar Kulwant, Advocate; Mr. Praneet Pranav, Advocate; Mr. Raman Yadav, Advocate; Ms. Rekha Pandey, Advocate.
