Disabilities Can Be Attributed To Service In Army Due To Stressful Work Conditions, Delhi High Court Grants Disability Pension

Background

The Respondent, an armed forces personnel was enrolled in Army Service in December, 1981. He was granted disability element of disability pension by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi by an Order dated 12.05.2023. In deciding the Respondent's case, the Tribunal relied on the ratio laid down in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

The Tribunal observed that the Respondent had been in military service for long and his disabilities started after 24 years of the Army Service. Relying on the judgement in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India & Ors., (2013) 7 SCC 316, the Tribunal gave the Respondent benefit of doubt since his poor lifestyle was not noted. It was observed that in view of judgment mentioned above and settled law on the point of attributability/aggravation, the disabilities of the applicant would be held attributable to/aggravated by the military service. Dissatisfied with the reasoning by the Review Medical Board in considering the diseases non-attributable to Service and having occurred in peace station, the Tribunal held that such reason could not be accepted.

Acknowledging the pressure of rigorous military training and associated stress and strain of the service an Army personnel goes through during the Service, the Tribunal observed that considering it as a 'metabolic disorder' without explanation, could not sustain. The Tribunal further delved into the intricacies of Army service and held that the stressful and hostile work environment, difficult weather conditions and strict disciplinary norms indicated that the disabilities of the Respondent could be attributed to the Military Service. Accordingly, the Respondent was granted relief by the Tribunal.

Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the Petitioners(UOI) approached the High Court.

Contentions of the Petitioner:

• The Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the presumption of the Tribunal concerning the attributability of the disabilities of the Respondent was drawn incorrectly.
• Referring to the Order dated 24.10.2018 passed by the Additional Directorate General of Manpower (Policy & Planning), the Counsel submitted that the Tribunal did not appreciate the detailed analysis provided by the Competent Authority in determining whether the disability suffered by the respondent could be attributed to the Military Service or not.
• The Counsel submitted that the Order deserved to be set aside on such grounds.

Contentions of the Respondent:

• The Counsel for the Respondent submitted that there was a change of opinion/overwriting in the opinion given by the Medical Board regarding whether the disability of the Respondent could be said to have been aggravated by the service.
• Challenging the contention of the Petitioner regarding the posting, the Counsel for Respondent submitted that the Respondent was posted in Siachen Glacier from 05.07.1997 to 01.09.1998. He argued that considering the place of posting of the Respondent, the reasoning of the Medical Board in terms of how the disease was not attributable to Service was not correct.
• The Counsel referred to the proceedings of the Medical Board wherein it was admitted and observed that the duties with assigned to the Respondent involved severe/exceptional stress and strain and hence it could not be held that the disability in question could not be said to have arisen out of such rigorous work.

Findings of the Court:

The Court held that as per the Medical Board Proceedings, the submission of the Counsel for Petitioner that the Respondent was posted in a peace area from 1993 was factually incorrect. The Bench considered that the posting of the respondent involved severe/exceptional stress and strain, as was also acknowledged by the Medical Board. Satisfied with the contentions of the Counsel for Respondent, the Court rejected the stand of the Petitioners that the disease was non-attributable to service since it was first noticed when the respondent was not working in the field. It was further held that the Tribunal had given a persuasive explanation based on which the decision was taken.

Making these observations, the Court upheld the judgement of the Tribunal and dismissed the petition.

Case Title: UOI vs. COL (TS) SHYAMA NAND JHA (RETD.)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1180

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Ravi Prakash, CGSC with Mr. Yasharth, Ms. Tana Yasin, Mr. Ashu Khandelwal & Ms. Isha Kanth, Advs. Major Anish Muralidhar.

Click Here To Download Order/Judgement