Kerala HC Sets Aside AFT Order, Directs Disability Pension for Ex-Soldier Whose Hypertension Was Dismissed as Lifestyle Disorder

A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court held that where a disability pension claim is raised within 15 years of discharge, the onus of proof lies primarily on the Department, not the claimant, and that a medical board opinion unsupported by full reasons cannot sustain a denial of pension.

The Kerala High Court has allowed a writ petition filed by Balamurali Krishna M, a former soldier of the Indian Army, setting aside an order of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi that had denied him disability pension. The Division Bench of Justice K. Natarajan and Justice Johnson John, delivering judgment on 29 May 2026, directed the respondents to issue a corrigendum Pension Payment Order granting disability pension within three months. The bench held that the Tribunal had misread Rule 7 of the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 2008, and had wrongly placed the burden of proof on the petitioner when the claim had been raised well within 15 years of his discharge from service.

The Soldier's Service Record and the Pension Claim

Balamurali Krishna M was enrolled in the Indian Army on 18 November 2004 and was discharged on 30 November 2021, having served for 17 years and 12 days. At the time of his discharge, the Release Medical Board assessed two disabilities: primary hypertension at 30% for life, and obesity at 5% for life, resulting in a composite disability of 33.5% for life.

Despite recording these disabilities, the Release Medical Board opined that neither condition was attributable to nor aggravated by military service. The board's justification for primary hypertension was that the onset occurred during a peace tenure, that there was no close time association with field duty, counter-insurgency operations, or high-altitude tenure, and that there was no evidence of stress and strain due to military service. Obesity was dismissed as a lifestyle disorder.

On the basis of this opinion, the authorities rejected Balamurali Krishna's claim for disability pension. He challenged the denial through first and second appeals, both of which were rejected. He then filed Original Application No. 99 of 2023 before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi.

How the Tribunal Disposed of the Original Application

The Tribunal, by its order dated 6 March 2024, rejected the original application. It held that Rule 5 of the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 2008 did not permit a presumption in favour of the petitioner. It further held that the statutory presumptions available under Rules 5 and 14 of the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 were not applicable to the petitioner, since he had been discharged in 2021 and the 1982 Rules did not govern his case. The Tribunal found no reason to disagree with the medical board's opinion that the disabilities were neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service.

Aggrieved, Balamurali Krishna filed WP(C) No. 2893 of 2026 before the Kerala High Court.

The Central Legal Question: Who Bears the Burden Under Rule 7 of the 2008 Rules?

The petitioner's counsel, Sri T.R. Jagadeesh, argued that the Tribunal had not properly considered Rule 7 of the Entitlement Rules, 2008, which governs the onus of proof. Rule 7 reads:

“Ordinarily the claimant will not be called upon to prove the condition of entitlement.” The rule goes on to carve out an exception: where a claim is preferred after 15 years of discharge, retirement, invalidment, or release — by which time service documents are destroyed after the prescribed retention period — the onus to prove entitlement shifts to the claimant.

The petitioner's counsel relied on the coordinate bench decision in Union of India and others v. Bhaskaran [2024 KHC 7223], which had analysed both the 1982 Rules and the 2008 Rules at length and concluded that for claims raised within 15 years of discharge, the onus of proof remains primarily on the Department.

The Bench's Reading of Rule 7 and the Word "Ordinarily"

The Division Bench examined the meaning of the word “ordinarily” as explained by the Supreme Court in two decisions. In State of A.P. v. V. Sarma Rao [(2007) 2 SCC 159], the Supreme Court had held that “ordinarily” means “in the large majority of cases but not invariably” and that it is never used in reference to a case where there is no exception. In Union of India v. Hemraj Singh Chauhan [(2010) 4 SCC 290], the Supreme Court explained that the word “ordinarily” does not promote a cast-iron rule, is flexible, and conveys the idea of something done normally and generally, subject to special provision.

The bench then extracted paragraph 45 of Bhaskaran (supra), where the coordinate bench had reasoned that the second part of Rule 7 — which shifts the burden to the claimant after 15 years — operates like a proviso carving out an exception to the general rule in the first sentence. The rationale for the exception was that when belated claims are raised, the establishment will no longer be in possession of the relevant records, creating a risk that unscrupulous persons might wait for records to be destroyed before raising claims. The coordinate bench had held that the intention of the rule makers, discernible from the language, is that for claims raised within 15 years, the onus will continue to be primarily on the Department.

The Division Bench in the present case found force in this reasoning. It recorded that in Balamurali Krishna's case, the claim had been raised immediately after the rejection of his disability pension claim, through first and second appeals and then before the Tribunal, all well within 15 years of his discharge on 30 November 2021. The Tribunal's finding that the burden lay on the petitioner was therefore not legally sustainable.

The Medical Board's Reasoning Examined

The bench also addressed the adequacy of the medical board's justification. The board had recorded that the onset of primary hypertension occurred during a peace tenure, that there was no close time association with field duty or high-altitude posting, and that there was no evidence of stress and strain due to military service. Obesity was recorded simply as a lifestyle disorder.

The petitioner's counsel cited the Delhi High Court's decision in MWO HFL Surendra Nath Singh v. Union of India and another [2026 SCC OnLine Del 728], which held that the mere fact that a disease onset occurred during a peace posting or that the disease is a lifestyle disorder is not by itself sufficient to deny attributability to military service.

The bench also referred to the Delhi High Court's decision in Union of India and others v. Col. Balbir Singh (Retd.) and other connected matters [2025 SCC OnLine Del 7873], which had examined Regulation 423 of the Regulations for the Medical Services of the Armed Forces, 2010. That provision makes clear that it is immaterial whether the cause giving rise to a disability occurred in a field or active service area or under normal peace conditions; what is essential is whether the disability bore a causal connection with service conditions. The Delhi High Court had observed that military service at peace stations carries inherent stress from strict discipline, long working hours, limited personal freedom, constant readiness for deployment, and the psychological burden of separation from family, and that a mere statement that a disease is a lifestyle disorder cannot be a sufficient reason to deny disability pension unless the medical board has examined and recorded particulars relevant to the individual concerned.

The bench further relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Rajumon T.M. v. Union of India and others [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1064], which held that if the opinion of the medical board is devoid of reasons, the act of the authority based on mere opinion without reasons can certainly be questioned. The bench also cited Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya v. Distt. Development Officer, Dahod [(2022) 16 SCC 343], where the Supreme Court held that social security legislation must be interpreted liberally and beneficially, and that where a word is capable of two meanings, the one that preserves the benefit must be adopted.

The Court's Findings

The Division Bench held that the denial of disability pension based on a medical opinion without providing full reasons to support that opinion cannot be said to be valid. The Tribunal had committed an error in denying the disability element of pension. The bench found that Balamurali Krishna is entitled to the disability element of pension.

On the onus of proof question, the bench held that since the claim was raised within 15 years of discharge, the onus of proof was primarily on the Department under Rule 7 of the Entitlement Rules, 2008, and the Tribunal's contrary finding was not legally sustainable.

Order

The Division Bench set aside the order dated 6 March 2024 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi in O.A. No. 99 of 2023. The writ petition was allowed. The respondents — Union of India through the Ministry of Defence, the Additional Director General of Personnel Services, the Officer in Charge Armoured Corps Records, and the Accounts Officer, PCDA (Pensions), Allahabad — were directed to issue a corrigendum Pension Payment Order granting disability pension to the petitioner at the earliest, and in any event within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The bench further directed that if the payment is not made within that period, the unpaid arrears will carry interest at 7% per annum.