In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court emphasized that any rejection of disability pension claims must be accompanied by a well-reasoned order. The court underscored that when a service member develops disabilities during their tenure, the possibility of these being service-related cannot be dismissed without proper justification.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, who served as an Uttam Navik in the Indian Coast Guard, developed two disabilities during his service:
Recurrent Depressive Disorder: This condition manifested on November 15, 2009, and was assessed by the Medical Board at 40% for life. The Board concluded that it was neither attributable to nor aggravated by service.
Prolapsed Intervertebral Disc: This ailment began on December 9, 2006, and was evaluated at 20% for life. The Medical Board determined it to be attributable to service.
The combined assessment for both disabilities was 50% for life. Based on these evaluations, the Medical Board recommended that the petitioner be granted a disability pension. However, on March 21, 2014, the Pension Sanctioning Authority awarded only an invalid pension under Rule 38 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, without providing a detailed rationale for denying the disability pension.
After serving for 11 years, the petitioner was invalidated out of service on August 27, 2013. Upon seeking clarification, he was informed that he was entitled only to an invalid pension. Dissatisfied, the petitioner sent a legal notice cum representation on August 17, 2018, which was subsequently rejected by the Coast Guard Headquarters on November 29, 2018. This led the petitioner to approach the Delhi High Court for redress.
Petitioner's Arguments
The petitioner's counsel contended that at the time of recruitment, the petitioner was in sound physical and mental health, with no pre-existing conditions. The onset of the first disability after seven years of service suggested a direct correlation with the stresses and strains of military duty. Notably, the petitioner had been stationed in Port Blair, a challenging posting, just before the development of his depressive disorder in 2009.
The counsel referenced the "Guidelines for Conceding Attributability of Disablement or Death to Government Service" under the CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, arguing that the Medical Board should have deemed the first disability as attributable to service. Furthermore, the counsel highlighted that the Pension Sanctioning Authority's decision to deny the disability pension lacked a reasoned order, making it arbitrary and unjust.
Respondents' Defense
The respondents maintained that the Medical Board had determined the first disability to be neither attributable to nor aggravated by service. They argued that the petitioner was therefore ineligible for a disability pension and was rightly granted an invalid pension. They also contended that the petitioner had not exhausted all available remedies before approaching the High Court.
Court's Analysis and Judgment
The Division Bench, comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur, observed that the petitioner had developed both disabilities during his service period. The court noted that the respondents failed to provide any explanation for disregarding the Medical Board's recommendation for a disability pension. The absence of a reasoned order for the rejection was a significant procedural lapse.
The court emphasized that when a disability arises during service, there is a presumptive link to service conditions unless proven otherwise. The respondents did not furnish any evidence to counter this presumption or justify the denial of the disability pension.
Consequently, the court directed the respondents to grant the petitioner the disability element of the pension, as recommended by the Medical Board, within eight weeks from the date of the judgment. Additionally, the petitioner was awarded costs of ₹50,000.
Implications of the Judgment
This ruling reinforces the principle that decisions affecting the rights and entitlements of service members must be transparent and well-reasoned. The judgment serves as a reminder to authorities that procedural fairness and adherence to due process are paramount, especially when dealing with the welfare of those who have served the nation.
By mandating reasoned orders for the rejection of disability pensions, the Delhi High Court has ensured greater accountability and protection for service members facing health challenges attributable to their service.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.