The Supreme Court on Tuesday (September 15) dismissed 271 appeals filed by the Union Government concerning Military Disability Pension granted to ex-servicemen who raised claims within 15 years of retirement. The Court held that the 2008 Entitlement Rules removed the earlier presumption of fitness at entry into service. However, that change does not shift the primary burden entirely onto the serviceman. The Union of India must still prove that the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated (NANA) by military service.
A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe delivered the judgment. The Union had challenged orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) and various High Courts. Those forums had granted disability pension to former servicemen.
In each case, a Release Medical Board (RMB) concluded that the disability was “neither attributable nor aggravated” by military service. The ex-servicemen then filed appeals, which the authorities dismissed. They subsequently approached either the AFT or the respective High Courts. Those forums granted disability pension. The Union then approached the Supreme Court.
Union Relies on 2008 Entitlement Rules
Attorney General R. Venkataramani, appearing for the Union, opposed the grant of disability pension under the applicable 2008 Entitlement Rules.
He argued that the 2008 Rules differed from the 1982 Entitlement Rules. The earlier Rules created a presumption of fitness when a person joined military service. This presumption helped establish a link between a later disability and military service.
According to the Attorney General, the 2008 Rules removed this presumption. Therefore, he argued that servicemen could not automatically claim disability benefits. Instead, they had to establish a causal connection between the disability and military service.
The Attorney General also questioned the reliance that various AFTs and High Courts placed on the 2013 judgment in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India.
He submitted that Dharamvir Singh concerned the 1982 Entitlement Rules. Therefore, courts could not simply apply its principles to claims governed by the 2008 Entitlement Rules.
Ex-Servicemen Defend Beneficial Framework
The respondent ex-servicemen opposed the Union’s submissions.
They acknowledged that the 2008 Entitlement Rules removed the presumption of fitness. However, they argued that this change did not alter the core framework governing disability pension claims. According to them, the other beneficial provisions broadly remained unchanged.
The Supreme Court examined whether the Entitlement Rules 2008 significantly departed from the Entitlement Rules 1982.
In particular, the Court considered four issues. These included the presumption of sound health at entry and the burden of proof in disability claims. It also examined the causal connection between disability and military service. Finally, it considered how the Rules dealt with aggravation of pre-existing conditions.
Supreme Court Compares 1982 and 2008 Rules
The Supreme Court conducted a detailed comparison of both sets of Entitlement Rules.
The bench accepted that the 2008 Rules introduced an important change. They removed the earlier presumption concerning a person who joined service in sound health but later left with a disability.
The 2008 Rules also expressly require consideration of a causal connection.
However, the Court held that these changes did not dismantle the claimant-protective framework governing disability pension claims.
The Court observed:
“…mere addition of a causal requirement and a removal of the presumption that when a member joins service healthy, and, if, he leaves with a disability, it ought to be attributable to the military service, does not, by itself, change the core scheme of the Entitlement Rules 2008 because the other beneficial provisions broadly remain untouched. The onus to prove that the member’s disability is not attributable to service still lies on the employer. The relevant rules regarding attributability and aggravation continue to hold that if cause of disability is unknown, and presumption of attributability is not rebutted, then the disability is attributable to service.”
Thus, removing the earlier fitness presumption does not place the initial burden entirely on the serviceman.
The bench further stated:
“…even though Entitlement Rules 2008 removed the automatic presumption and strengthened the requirement of causal nexus, they did not dismantle the claimant-protective structure of the Rules, particularly the continued allocation of primary burden to the establishment and beneficial principles governing attributability, aggravation and reasonable doubt.”
Different Burden for Claims Beyond 15 Years
The Court clarified the burden of proof for claims under the 2008 Rules.
For claims made within 15 years, the general beneficial burden-of-proof framework continues to operate in favour of ex-servicemen. Therefore, the establishment retains the primary burden in such cases.
However, a different rule applies when an ex-serviceman raises a claim after the stipulated 15-year period. In those cases, the ex-serviceman must establish the conditions required for entitlement.
This distinction formed an important part of the Court’s interpretation of the Military Disability Pension framework under the 2008 Rules.
Dharamvir Singh Cannot Be Applied Mechanically Under 2008 Rules
The Supreme Court also examined the relevance of Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India.
The Court noted that Dharamvir Singh concerned the 1961 Regulations read with the Entitlement Rules 1982. Therefore, courts and tribunals must examine the provisions that govern claims under the 2008 Rules.
They cannot automatically apply principles developed under the earlier framework.
The Court said:
“Dharamvir Singh, having been decided in the context of the Entitlement Rules 1982 and on its particular factual foundation, cannot be mechanically applied to cases governed by the Entitlement Rules 2008. In particular, the decision cannot be understood as creating an irrebuttable or automatic presumption that every disability first manifested during service is attributable to military service.”
Union Can Identify Cases Requiring Reconsideration
The Supreme Court also clarified that the Union could identify individual cases that may require reconsideration.
This could apply where the RMB and appellate authorities had rejected a claim. It could also apply where the AFT or High Court later granted relief by mechanically relying on the presumption or Dharamvir Singh.
The Court observed:
“If the medical board and the appeals had rejected the claim but the AFT or the High Court have routinely allowed the application or the Writ Petition by following the principle of presumption or the decision in Dharamvir without a detailed examination of the evidence adduced by the ex-servicemen in support of their case, then there is certainly a case for revisiting those decisions. It is for the Union to identify such cases and raise appropriate objections to demonstrate that the burden is discharged or not.”
Therefore, the Union may identify such cases and raise appropriate objections based on the evidence and applicable Rules.
Supreme Court Criticises Delay in Union’s Appeals
The Supreme Court also criticised the Union over delays in filing challenges concerning disability pensions.
The bench noted that limitation barred most of the approximately 271 Civil Appeals and Special Leave Petitions. It added that the Court had already dismissed many similar appeals on limitation grounds.
The Court observed:
“The sad part of this litigation is that, out of around 271 Civil Appeals and Special Leave Petitions, most of them are barred by limitation. Many similar appeals that were barred by limitation have already been dismissed in the past; the present batch is only a small number that survive.”
The Court also referred to information obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
According to the figures before the Court, the First Appellate Authority considered 2,997 appeals. It rejected 2,855 claims and accepted only 142 appeals.
At the Second Appellate Authority stage, the authority considered 456 appeals. It rejected 439 and accepted only 17.
The Court highlighted the large difference between the number of rejected and accepted claims.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the Union Government’s appeals. It also clarified the principles governing the 2008 Entitlement Rules, including burden of proof and causal connection. The judgment further addressed attributability and aggravation of disabilities in the context of military service.
