The Supreme Court has dismissed a batch of 271 appeals filed by the Union Government challenging disability pensions granted to ex-servicemen, holding that the removal of the presumption of fitness at the time of entry into service under the 2008 Entitlement Rules does not, by itself, shift the entire burden onto the serviceman.
A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe held that the Union must still discharge the burden of establishing that a disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service.
The appeals arose from orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) and various High Courts granting disability pension despite Release Medical Boards (RMBs) having opined that the disabilities were “neither attributable nor aggravated” (NANA) by military service.
The ex-servicemen had initially been denied disability pension by the authorities. They subsequently approached the AFTs or High Courts, which granted relief, prompting the Union to approach the Supreme Court.
Attorney General R Venkataramani, appearing for the Union, argued that the 2008 Entitlement Rules marked a departure from the 1982 Rules.
Under the 1982 Rules, a serviceman who entered service in sound health and subsequently developed a disability was entitled to the benefit of a presumption that the disability was attributable to military service. The Attorney General submitted that this presumption was removed under the 2008 Rules, which also expressly require a causal connection between the disability and military service.
The ex-servicemen, however, argued that although the 2008 Rules removed the presumption of fitness at entry, the beneficial framework of the disability-pension scheme remained substantially unchanged.
The Supreme Court agreed in part with the Union’s interpretation but rejected the contention that the 2008 Rules had completely altered the burden-of-proof framework.
The Supreme Court held that despite removing the initial presumption of fitness and adding a causal requirement, the 2008 Entitlement Rules maintain their claimant-protective framework. The Bench noted that these changes alone do not alter the fundamental purpose of the 2008 Rules, as key beneficial provisions remain intact.
It held that the burden to prove that a disability was not attributable to or aggravated by military service continues to lie upon the employer in cases falling within the applicable framework. The Court clarified that Dharamvir Singh, having been decided in the context of the 1982 Entitlement Rules, cannot automatically govern cases under the 2008 Rules.
The Bench, however, said the Union could seek reconsideration of cases where AFTs or High Courts had granted disability pension merely by mechanically relying on Dharamvir Singh, without examining the evidence produced by the ex-servicemen.
The Court also criticised the Union for filing several appeals beyond the limitation period.
It noted that most of the 271 appeals and Special Leave Petitions were barred by limitation, adding that several similar time-barred matters had already been dismissed.
The Bench further referred to RTI data showing that out of 2,997 appeals before the First Appellate Authority, 2,855 were rejected and only 142 were accepted. At the Second Appellate Authority stage, 439 of 456 appeals were rejected, while only 17 were accepted.
The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the Union’s batch of appeals while laying down the manner in which disability-pension claims under the 2008 Entitlement Rules are to be examined.
The post Supreme Court dismisses 271 appeals against ex-servicemen disability pension appeared first on India Legal.