SC dismisses Centre’s 271 appeals on disability pension for retired Army personnel

The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed around 271 appeals and special leave petitions concerning the grant of the disability element of service pension to retired Army personnel.

A Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe rejected the Centre's challenges to orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) and various high courts that had granted disability pension relief to retired Army personnel.

The Centre had argued that the Entitlement Rules of 2008 fundamentally changed the beneficial framework under the Entitlement Rules of 1982. The Supreme Court rejected this argument.

The Bench observed that the 2008 Rules substantially retain the 1982 framework on causal connection, onus, and attributability or aggravation. It noted that Rule 7 introduced a qualification under which the claimant bears the burden of proving entitlement if the claim is challenged 15 years after discharge.

In its September 15 ruling, the court acknowledged that the 2008 Rules removed the earlier presumption that a person was physically fit when joining military service. However, it held that this did not automatically mean that a disability detected at the time of discharge was unrelated to military service.

The cases arose after retired personnel approached the AFT and high courts against medical boards classifying their disabilities as NANA (Neither Attributable to Nor Aggravated) by military service.

The Supreme Court held that the burden of proving that a disability was NANA continues to lie on the employer, namely the union government or the Army, even under the 2008 Rules.

After the AFT and high courts overturned such classifications and granted relief to the personnel, the Centre challenged those orders before the Supreme Court.

The top court dismissed the batch of appeals both on the ground of delay and on merits. It also laid down three key clarifications: Medical board opinions must be given due weight; tribunals must scrutinise the reasoning behind such opinions; and where a claim is raised more than 15 years after discharge, the burden of proof shifts to the claimant.

The court also questioned the rationale behind the changes introduced under the 2008 regime. It criticised the government's decision to file more than 250 belated appeals against AFT and high court orders despite the Raksha Mantri's 2015 report recommending their withdrawal.