SC questions govt over continued litigation against disabled soldiers

The Supreme Court has questioned the Centre over the continued filing of cases against disabled soldiers seeking disability pension, despite a 2015 Defence Ministry report recommending that such litigation be withdrawn.

The court dismissed 271 appeals filed by the Centre challenging orders that had directed payment of disability pension to ex-servicemen, while expressing concern over the government's failure to fully implement the recommendation made in the report.

A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, in its September 15 verdict, referred to the Ministry of Defence's Review of Service and Pension Matters including Potential Disputes, Minimizing Litigation and Strengthening Institutional Mechanisms related to redressal of grievances report, 2015, commonly known as the Raksha Mantri Report.

The report had highlighted that many disabled soldiers continued to be denied disability benefits on what it described as "hyper-technical reasons", even as other countries had moved ahead in recognising disabilities arising from military service.

It had specifically recommended the immediate withdrawal of appeals of this nature pending against disabled soldiers.

The Supreme Court said the recommendation had not been faithfully implemented.

"Appeals such as these are filed and continue to be filed, even after the Ministry of Defence accepted the committee's recommendation for withdrawal of this class of litigation," the bench observed.

The court was dealing with appeals against orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) and various high courts granting disability pension to ex-servicemen.

The cases largely involved soldiers who, at the time of their release from service, had been assessed by Release Medical Boards as suffering from disabilities that were neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, described as NANA.

Based on those medical assessments, the ex-servicemen's departmental appeals were rejected. They subsequently approached the AFT or high courts, which in several cases granted disability pension after concluding that the disabilities were attributable to or aggravated by military service.

The Supreme Court said the issue before it was limited to entitlement to the disability element of service pension upon retirement, after completion of service or engagement.

Referring to the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards to Armed Forces Personnel of 1982 and 2008, the bench said the 2008 rules appeared to be a consolidation of modified executive instructions issued after the 1982 rules.

The court expressed concern over the lack of clarity surrounding the rules governing pensionary benefits.

"We are at a loss to understand as to why the position of a rule that governs pensionary benefits be shrouded in mystery. Transparency, clarity and certainty are of enormous importance for any legitimate action," it said.

The bench said uncertainty in the rules could leave ex-servicemen dissatisfied and erode their confidence in the process through which their claims and entitlements are considered.

"It is necessary, rather compelling, that the applicable rules/regulations are formulated and notified authoritatively by the competent authority as early as possible," it said.

The court also examined whether the 2008 Entitlement Rules represented a significant departure from the 1982 framework.

It said the addition of a causal requirement and removal of the earlier presumption that a disability suffered by a person who entered service in good health was attributable to military service did not, by itself, alter the core structure of the 2008 rules, as other beneficial provisions broadly remained intact.

Importantly, the bench said the burden of establishing that a member's disability was not attributable to military service continued to rest on the employer.

The court also took note of the Attorney General's submission that the opinion of a medical board should receive due weight and should not be replaced by a court merely because another view is possible.

"In pending matters, the Tribunal must scrutinize in detail the opinion and reasons expressed by the medical board before deciding upon the claims," the bench said.

At the same time, the court noted that a substantial number of the Centre's appeals had already faced procedural hurdles.

"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," it said.

The bench also clarified the position where a claimant approaches the relevant forum after a prolonged delay.

"If a claimant approaches the relevant forum after a period of fifteen years, the principle in Rule 7 of the Entitlement Rules 2008 applies and the burden shifts. Onus in such a case will be on the applicant to prove the conditions of entitlement," it said.

While dismissing the appeals, the Supreme Court noted that several special leave petitions and civil appeals involving similar orders had already been dismissed.

The judgment brings renewed attention to a long-standing issue for disabled ex-servicemen: the gap between medical assessments, pension rules and prolonged litigation over benefits intended to recognize disabilities connected with military service.