Union of India & Ors. vs Ex. Sep. R. Munusamy
Background
The respondent was discharged from the Army in 1997 on administrative grounds as an "undesirable soldier" after repeated disciplinary offences, not on medical grounds. Nearly 20 years later, in 2017, he claimed disability pension citing a seizure disorder noted at the time of his discharge and parity with other soldiers who had been medically invalidated out of service. The Armed Forces Tribunal allowed his claim in 2020 and even directed a fresh medical board to reassess his disability decades after discharge.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's order, holding that disability pension rules (particularly Rule 14 of the Entitlement Rules, 1982) presume a disease arose in service only when that disease actually caused the discharge: here the discharge was purely administrative/disciplinary, not medical. The Court held the precedent relied on by the Tribunal (Union of India v. Rajbir Singh) did not apply because those soldiers had been medically invalidated, unlike this respondent. It also held that a medical opinion obtained 20-30 years after recruitment/discharge cannot reliably establish that an ailment was attributable to or aggravated by military service, and the Tribunal was wrong to order a fresh medical board decades late.
Lesson Learnt
Disability pension is tied to a disease or injury actually causing discharge from service; a soldier discharged for disciplinary/administrative reasons cannot claim disability pension merely because an unrelated ailment was noted around the same time, especially when the claim is raised decades later.