In a recent and commendable decision, the Supreme Court of India has come to the rescue of a former soldier whose disability pension was unjustly confined to just one year. This significant ruling extended the payment period by an additional 10 years, aligning with the Army Pension Regulations of 1961, which stipulate that such pensions should be paid for a minimum of 10 years at the outset.
The case, titled “Ex L/Nk Rajput Ajit Singh vs Union of India and ors,” saw the Supreme Court bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar reversing an earlier order that had limited the disability pension payments to a mere one-year duration. The court highlighted the illogical nature of this decision when considering the specific circumstances of the case.
Central to the court’s decision was the acknowledgment that a medical board had previously determined that the soldier’s disability was not solely attributable to his army service, primarily because he had been reluctant to undergo a “life-threatening” surgery. However, it was also noted that the soldier’s service records clearly indicated that he was discharged from duty due to his “permanent disablement.”
Given these contradictory findings, the Supreme Court found the decision of the Armed Forces Appellate Tribunal (AFT) to restrict disability benefits to just one year as lacking in logic. The AFT had either not considered or had failed to provide adequate reasons for deviating from the norm outlined in Rule 185 of the Pension Regulations.
The soldier involved in this case was a former lance naik rank soldier who had dedicated 15 years of his life to serving in the Indian Army before his honorable discharge in 1987, primarily due to heart problems. His medical condition warranted disability treatment, making him eligible for a pension. Following the insertion of a pacemaker during surgery in 2018, he sought a re-assessment of the disability component of his pension, which subsequently led to the one-year limit being imposed.
Not willing to accept this unjust restriction, the soldier appealed the decision before the Supreme Court, which ultimately ruled in his favor. The Supreme Court considered various factors, including the medical board’s assessment that there was no negligence on the soldier’s part and his exemplary service record.
Crucially, the top court emphasized that the AFT had overlooked Rule 185 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, which explicitly states that disability pension should be granted for an initial period of 10 years, with the option for reassessment after this period.
As a result of this landmark ruling, the Supreme Court ordered that the disability pension be disbursed to the appellant-soldier for a full 10-year period, after which a re-assessment may be conducted.
Advocates Liz Mathew, Mallika Agarwal, and Nisarg Bhardwaj represented the Lance Naik Rajput Ajit Singh in this case, while Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, along with advocates R Bala, Anmol Chandan, Saransh Kumar, Ameyavikrama Thanvi, and Arvind Kumar Sharma, represented the Central government.
This decision by the Supreme Court underscores the importance of upholding the rights and entitlements of veterans, ensuring that they receive fair and just treatment, especially concerning disability pensions and benefits.
