Introduction

The case of Sub Anil Kishor (Retd.) v. Union of India, COAS, ASC Records (South) Pin-900493, PCDA(P) adjudicated on May 31, 2023, by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) Principal Bench in New Delhi, explores the complex issue of attributing disabilities to military service for the purpose of disability pension grants. The applicant, Sub Anil Kishor, a retired Indian Army officer, sought recognition of his disabilities as a direct consequence of his military service, thereby entitling him to a disability pension.

This commentary delves into the background of the case, the Tribunal's reasoning, the legal precedents referenced, and the broader implications of the judgment on military personnel seeking disability benefits.

Summary of the Judgment

Sub Anil Kishor, having served in the Indian Army from October 26, 1990, to October 31, 2020, was discharged in a low medical category based on three disabilities:

• Generalized Anxiety Disorder @40%
• Primary Hypertension @30%
• Dyslipidemia @5%

The initial assessment deemed these disabilities as neither attributable to nor aggravated by his military service, leading to the rejection of his disability pension claim. Despite appeals, the rejection was upheld until the matter reached the Armed Forces Tribunal.

Upon review, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, granting a disability pension of 30% (rounded to 50%) solely for Primary Hypertension, acknowledging it as attributable to his service. The other two disabilities were dismissed due to lack of evidence linking them to military service.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Tribunal heavily relied on two pivotal Supreme Court judgments:

• Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India & Ors [2013 (7) SCC 36]: This case established that disabilities incurred during service are presumed attributable to military service if no prior record exists at the time of enlistment.
• Ex Cfn Narsingh Yadav v. UOI & Others [2019]: Reinforced the principle that undetectable mental disorders at the time of recruitment cannot be automatically attributed to service-related stressors unless substantial evidence is present.

These precedents guided the Tribunal in assessing whether the disabilities claimed by Sub Anil Kishor were a direct result of his military service.

Legal Reasoning

The core legal inquiry centered on the concept of "attributability" of disabilities to military service as per Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, and Regulation 81 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008. The Tribunal examined whether:

• The disabilities were a consequence of military service or aggravated by it.
• The disabilities met the threshold of at least 20% for pension eligibility.

For Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Dyslipidemia, the Tribunal found insufficient evidence linking these conditions to military service, referencing the stringent conditions under which psychiatric disorders are deemed attributable. However, Primary Hypertension was recognized as attributable, meeting the necessary criteria for pension eligibility.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the stringent standards required for attributing disabilities to military service. It underscores the necessity of clear medical evidence establishing a direct or aggravated link to service conditions. For future cases, military personnel must ensure comprehensive medical documentation to support disability claims. Additionally, the partial allowance highlights a nuanced approach, potentially encouraging applicants to focus on conditions with clearer attributability.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Attributability and Aggravation

Attributability refers to disabilities directly caused by military service. This could include injuries or illnesses incurred during active duty, combat, or specific service-related incidents.

Aggravation implies that pre-existing conditions have worsened due to the stresses or demands of military service.

Disability Pension Criteria

Under Regulation 81 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008, a disability must be:

• Attributable to or aggravated by military service.
• Assessed at 20% or more to qualify for a pension.

Military Medical Board Assessments

The Release Medical Board evaluates a serviceman's fitness for discharge based on medical conditions. Their assessment plays a critical role in disability pension claims, as their findings are subject to judicial review but are generally given considerable weight unless robust evidence contradicts them.

Conclusion

The Tribunal's decision in Sub Anil Kishor v. Union of India delineates the rigorous standards required for attributing disabilities to military service. By partially granting the disability pension for Primary Hypertension, the judgment highlights the importance of clear medical causation and adherence to established regulations. This case serves as a critical reference for future disability pension claims within the armed forces, emphasizing the need for meticulous medical documentation and the inherent challenges in linking certain medical conditions to service-related factors.

Ultimately, this judgment balances compassionate acknowledgment of genuine service-related disabilities with the imperative of maintaining stringent eligibility criteria, ensuring that disability pensions are both fair and justified.