Disability Pension for Seizure
Disability Pension for Seizure
The Supreme Court evaluated the claim of Disability Pension for Seizure to a soldier suffering from generalized tonic-clonic seizure, developed his disability due to military service.
Central issue before the Court was whether his medical condition qualified as “attributable to or aggravated by service” under Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations, 1961, and whether he is entitle to a disability pension even though his disability was assessed below 20%.
Apex legal body Analyzes the Legal Framework of Disability Entitlement
The Bench examined Regulation 173 and the Entitlement Rules, 1982. Court stated that these rules presume every soldier to be in sound health at the time of recruitment. If a disability occurs later, the Court emphasized that the law presumes the disease to have arisen from military service.
Court pointed out that Rules 5, 9, and 14(b) clearly shift the burden of proof onto the government authorities to disprove the link between service and disease.
Hon’ble Court held that when a Medical Board finds no disease at the time of entry and no misconduct, it cannot deny the connection between the disease and military service without offering valid reasoning.
The Bench noted that in Bijender Singh’s case, the Medical Board failed to justify its conclusion that his illness was not service-related.
Reliance on Precedents Strengthens Reasoning for Disability
The Supreme Court relied on several earlier decisions to reinforce its interpretation.
Dharamvir Singh Case (2013)
Adjudication judge referred to Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India, where it ruled that if a disease is not noted at recruitment, any disability arising later must be presumed to have been caused by military service unless the authorities clearly prove otherwise.
Rajbir Singh and Sukhvinder Singh Cases
Supreme Court Bench cited Rajbir Singh v. Union of India and Sukhvinder Singh v. Union of India, where it recognized that soldiers discharged due to medical conditions developed during service are entitled to disability pension.
The apex law adjudicatory authority stressed that denying pension in such cases violates the principle of fairness and the presumption of service connection.
K.J.S. Buttar Case
Supreme Court also relied on K.J.S. Buttar v. Union of India, which held that denying benefits to pre-1996 retirees while granting them to post-1996 retirees amounts to discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Court Rejects the 20% Disability Barrier
The Hon’ble Court reviewed Government of India letters from 2001 and 2006, which had removed the minimum 20% disability requirement for those invalided after 01.01.1996.
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Armed Forces Tribunal had erred by applying an outdated rule to deny pension.
Court clarified that once the disability arises during service and the person is invalided out, the degree of disability becomes irrelevant for entitlement purposes.
Tribunal’s Errors Identified on Disability Pension for Seizure
The Supreme Court found that the Armed Forces Tribunal had failed to apply binding precedents and misinterpreted the pension regulations.
Hon’ble Tribunal accepted the Medical Board’s findings without examining whether they complied with Rule 14(b), which requires a reasoned explanation when rejecting service attribution.
The Court criticized the Tribunal for ignoring established legal principles and for refusing benefits on technical grounds.
Court Establishes Principle of Presumption in Favour of Soldiers
The Court reaffirmed the presumption of service connection in favour of armed personnel. It declared that when a soldier develops a disability i.e. Seizure during active service and no evidence shows prior illness or misconduct, the disability must be treated as service-related.
Hon’ble Court emphasized that soldiers face unique physical and mental stress, making it unjust to deny them pension benefits without solid proof to the contrary.
Supreme Court’s Final Ruling for Disability Pension for Seizure
Orders of the Tribunal Set Aside
The Court set aside both orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal dated 26 February 2016 and 22 January 2018. It held that the Tribunal had erred in law and fact by denying the disability pension for Seizure
Disability Declared Attributable to Military Service
The Supreme Court ruled that Bijender Singh’s illness originated from the conditions of his military service. Court declared that his disability is attributable to and aggravated by service.
Entitlement to Disability Pension Restored
The Court directed the authorities to grant the disability element of pension to Bijender Singh.
It also ordered that the assessed disability be rounded off to 50% in line with the government’s policy for invalided soldiers.
Arrears and Interest Awarded on Disability Pension for Seizure
The Bench instructed the respondents to pay arrears from 01 January 1996, along with 8% interest per annum until full payment.
Court explained that this interest compensates the soldier for the long delay in receiving his lawful dues.
Broader Legal Impact of the Decision on Disability Pension for Seizure
The judgment reaffirmed the humanitarian and liberal interpretation of disability pension laws. Court emphasized that military service involves physical and psychological challenges that naturally contribute to certain ailments.
Therefore, authorities must adopt a beneficial approach while dealing with service-related disabilities.
Court highlighted that military personnel deserve respect and protection for their sacrifices. Denying them disability pension on procedural or technical grounds violates constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity.
Constitutional Dimension of the Decision on Disability Pension for Seizure
The Supreme Court invoked Article 14 to reinforce that equality before law prohibits discriminatory treatment between similarly placed service personnel.
Court noted that granting pension benefits to some categories while excluding others with identical conditions amounts to arbitrary state action.
The Court also linked the right to pension with the right to livelihood under Article 21, noting that pension is not a bounty but a right earned through service.
Denying disability benefits without justification infringes upon this constitutional protection.
Court Issues Implementation Direction to grant Disability Pension for Seizure
Supreme Court ordered the government to implement its directions within three months from the date of the judgment.
It warned that any delay in compliance would attract additional interest. Court directed that the Ministry of Defence ensure prompt disbursal to avoid further hardship to the appellant.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court concluded that Bijender Singh’s disability i.e. Seizure arose by his military duties and that the authorities had unlawfully denied him pension benefits.
Court applied settled principles of presumption, equality, and fairness to uphold the soldier’s rights.
Through this decision, the Court reaffirmed its commitment to protect the dignity and welfare of armed forces personnel, emphasizing that the nation must not neglect those who serve it.
The ruling sets a precedent ensuring that soldiers invalided out of service receive their rightful benefits without unnecessary litigation.
Hon’ble Supreme Court has decided many cases in favour of soldiers on the issue of disability pension in Armed Forces, but still Union of India is contesting it before Supreme Court.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q1. What was the main legal issue before the Supreme Court in Bijender Singh v. Union of India (2024)?
Answer: The main issue was whether Bijender Singh’s medical condition – generalized tonic-clonic seizure — was attributable to or aggravated by military service, and whether he was entitled to a disability pension even though his disability was assessed below 20%.
Q2. Which regulation governs the grant of disability pension to army personnel?
Answer: The case was governed by Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations, 1961, read with the Entitlement Rules, 1982, which define when a disability is considered attributable to or aggravated by service.
Q3. What presumption did the Supreme Court apply regarding a soldier’s health at the time of recruitment?
Answer: The Court applied the presumption that every soldier is in sound health when recruited, and if a disability develops during service, Court may presume by or aggravated by service unless proved otherwise by the authorities.
Q4. On whom does the burden of proof lie to disprove service connection?
Answer: Under Rules 5, 9, and 14(b) of the Entitlement Rules, the burden of proof lies on the government authorities to show that the disability does not connect with with military service.
Q5. Why did the Supreme Court criticize the Medical Board’s findings?
Answer: The Court found that the Medical Board failed to provide any reason for declaring the disability “not attributable to service,” despite admitting that Bijender Singh had no pre-existing disease or misconduct.
Questions on Pervious Case laws on Disability Pension
Q6. Which previous Supreme Court judgments were cited in this case?
Answer: The Court relied on Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India (2013), Rajbir Singh v. Union of India (2015), Sukhvinder Singh v. Union of India (2014), and K.J.S. Buttar v. Union of India (2011) to support its reasoning.
Q7. What did the Supreme Court decide regarding the 20% disability rule?
Answer: Hon’ble Court held that the 20% disability threshold no longer applied because the Government of India’s letters (2001 and 2006) had abolished the requirement for those invalided after 01.01.1996.
Q8. What directions did the Supreme Court issue in its final order?
Answer: The Supreme Court set aside both Armed Forces Tribunal orders and directed the authorities to grant the disability pension, round off the disability to 50%, and pay arrears from 01.01.1996 with 8% interest per annum until full payment.
Q9. What constitutional principles did the Court invoke in its reasoning?
Answer: The Court invoked Article 14 (equality before law) to strike down discriminatory treatment and linked the right to pension with Article 21 (right to livelihood), declaring pension a constitutional right, not a charity.
Q10. What is the broader significance of this judgment for soldiers?
Answer: The judgment reinforces that disability arising during service must be treated as service-related.
Even without 20% disability criteria, and that soldiers invalided from service becomes entitle on valid grounds. It strengthens the humanitarian and liberal interpretation of disability pension laws.