The Punjab and Haryana High Court reiterated that a person is presumed to be in sound physical and mental health at the time of joining the military unless explicitly stated otherwise. Any health issues that arise later are assumed to be caused or worsened by military service.

A bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepi Sharma emphasized that the benefit of the doubt must be given to the disabled soldier. It held that the employer, in this case, the Union of India, bears the burden of proving that the disability was neither caused nor aggravated by military service.

The Court observed that the employer must present clear and convincing evidence to demonstrate that the disability is neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service.

“Furthermore, though therein a presumption is assigned vis-à-vis the sound physical and mental health of any member of the defence establishment concerned, especially when at the stage of his becoming enrolled, there is no note or record about his becoming beset with any disease. Moreover, though therein there is also a further presumption, that when any deterioration thereto, thus occurs subsequently, thereby the said happening of deterioration(s) or onsetting of any disease, rather is to be presumed to be a sequel of his rendering service as a member of the defence establishment,” the Court said.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently addressed a plea filed by Krishna Nandan Mishra, a former member of the Defence Security Corps (DSC), who was discharged in August 2007 after more than ten years of service. Mishra’s discharge was based on his placement in a low medical category, as determined by a Release Medical Board, which diagnosed him with “CAD IWMI-SVD 1-24” and assessed his disability at 30%. However, the board concluded that the condition was neither attributable to nor aggravated by his military service.

As a result, Mishra's claim for a disability pension was rejected by the competent authority, with two subsequent appeals in March 2009 and December 2010 also upholding the rejection. Dissatisfied, Mishra approached the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), challenging the denial of his disability pension. The tribunal, however, dismissed his application in April 2014, stating that his condition was unrelated to his military service.

Aggrieved by the tribunal's decision, Mishra filed a writ petition with the Punjab and Haryana High Court, asserting that his disability was either attributable to or aggravated by his service in the DSC.

The High Court scrutinized the Medical Board's and the AFT's assessments, noting that the evaluations lacked a comprehensive inquiry into the origin, progression, or potential aggravation of his condition. The Court emphasized that such superficial assessments violated the principles enshrined in the “Guide to Medical (Military Pension), 2002” and the “Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982.”

Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India, the High Court reaffirmed that a soldier is presumed to be in sound health at the time of enrollment unless otherwise noted. It further held that any subsequent health deterioration must be attributed to military service unless disproved by substantial evidence. The Court also clarified that disabilities arising during service, even in peace postings, could be considered attributable to or aggravated by service unless explicitly excluded by regulations.

Consequently, the High Court quashed the AFT's order and directed the authorities to process Mishra’s disability pension within three months. Additionally, the Court mandated the inclusion of rounding-off benefits as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India v. Ram Avtar.

Advocates Navdeep Singh, Roopan Atwal and Srishti Sharma appeared for petitioner.

Panel Counsel Narender Kumar Vashist appeared for the respondent.

Case Title: Krishna Nandan Mishra Versus Union of India and Others