In a solemn, compelling judgment, the Delhi High Court reaffirmed that disability pensions are not discretionary rewards but essential entitlements for those who serve the nation. A Division Bench comprising Justices C. Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul dismissed two petitions filed by the Union of India, which had challenged orders by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) granting service‐connected disability pensions to two veterans: Gawas Anil Madso and Amin Chand.
The first case, involving Gawas Anil Madso, who had joined the Army in 1985 and retired in 2015 after being diagnosed with Type II Diabetes Mellitus, presented a stark example of systemic failure. The Release Medical Board (RMB) had accepted his 20% disability but denied pension, concluding without explanation that the diabetes was unrelated to military service. The Court called this “completely bereft of reasons,” emphasizing that the onus lay on the authorities to demonstrate non‐attribution to service—not on the soldier to prove otherwise.
The second case involved Amin Chand, diagnosed with peripheral arterial occlusive disease in his right lower limb shortly before retirement in 2020. His disability pension was similarly rejected with a vague statement that the illness was neither attributable to nor aggravated by service. Dismissing this, the Court held that a "non‐speaking report" without substantive reasoning fails to meet statutory and constitutional requirements.
In both cases, the Court underscored that military service inherently carries risks—risks that include disease and disability, whether in active operations or “peace postings.” It stressed that stressful living conditions, even in non‐operational environments, can precipitate conditions like diabetes, and therefore RMBs must rigorously assess and justify non‐attribution.
Through powerful language, the Court juxtaposed civilian comfort against military sacrifice: “While we sip our hot cappuccinos by the fireplace, soldiers are braving icy winds at the border…” and invoked John F. Kennedy’s call—“Ask not what your country can do for you…”—to drive home the moral imperative of supporting veterans.
Ultimately, the High Court found no reason to overturn the AFT’s orders. Both writ petitions were dismissed in limine, and the grants of disability pension to Madso and Amin Chand stand upheld.
Key Takeaways
-
Burden of proof shifts to authorities: If RMBs deny service attribution, they must provide reasoned, evidence-based explanations.
-
Service-linked illnesses recognized broadly: Even diseases emerging during non-combat posting may be considered service-related.
-
Judicial acknowledgment of military sacrifice: The judgment reaffirms the state’s duty to care for those whose health has been compromised in service of the nation.
This decision strengthens legal protections for military personnel, setting a clear precedent for awarding disability pensions where administrative decisions lack reasoning or mistakenly disconnect conditions from service.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.