NewKerala.com

Delhi HC: Disability Pension Not Deniable for "Lifestyle Disorder"

The Delhi High Court has ruled that armed forces personnel cannot be denied disability pension simply because an illness is termed a "lifestyle disorder" or developed at a peace station. The court emphasized that military service is inherently stressful, with factors like discipline, long hours, and transfers contributing to health conditions, regardless of posting location. It set aside an Armed Forces Tribunal order that rejected a retired IAF officer's pension claim for hypertension and heart disease, criticizing the Medical Board's inadequate reasoning. The court directed authorities to grant the officer a 50% disability pension for life with arrears, payable within eight weeks.

Key Points: Delhi HC: No Disability Pension Denial for Lifestyle Disorder

  • Pension cannot be denied for "lifestyle disorder"
  • Service stress applies even at peace postings
  • Medical Board must provide proper reasoning
  • Court orders pension with arrears and interest
3 min read

Disability Pension cannot be denied due to "lifestyle disorder": Delhi HC

Delhi High Court rules armed forces personnel cannot be denied disability pension merely because an illness is labeled a "lifestyle disorder."

"military service remains stressful even in non-operational areas - Delhi High Court"

New Delhi, February 26

The Delhi High Court on Thursday ruled that armed forces personnel cannot be denied disability pension merely because a disease is described as a "lifestyle disorder" or because it developed while posted at a peace station.

The Court observed that military service remains stressful even in non-operational areas and can contribute to serious health conditions.

A Division Bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora set aside an order of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) that had rejected the disability pension claim of a retired Indian Air Force officer suffering from primary hypertension and coronary artery disease.

The Court stressed that it does not matter whether an illness develops in a field area or during a peace posting. What matters is whether the disease has a connection with service conditions.

It noted that military life involves strict discipline, long working hours, frequent transfers, separation from family, and constant readiness for deployment, all of which can cause physical and mental stress affecting health.

The Bench found that the Release Medical Board had failed to provide proper reasons for declaring the officer's disabilities as neither attributable to nor aggravated by service.

Simply labelling the illness as a lifestyle disorder without identifying specific lifestyle factors was held to be legally unsustainable. The Court also pointed out that the Board itself recorded that the disease was not due to negligence or misconduct by the officer.

The Court rejected arguments relating to obesity, smoking, or alcohol use, noting that these factors were not cited as causes in the Medical Board's findings. It further held that being overweight alone cannot prove that hypertension or heart disease is self-inflicted. The AFT was also faulted for introducing weight and lifestyle factors on its own, without medical evidence supporting such conclusions.

The Court also found the Medical Board's reasoning regarding heart disease inadequate, noting that linking a serious cardiac condition to duties performed in the preceding 14 days had no logical basis.

The officer had served in the Indian Air Force for over 40 years and was medically fit at the time of joining. He developed hypertension in 1999 and later underwent open-heart surgery in 2016 after being diagnosed with severe coronary artery disease. Despite his disabilities being assessed at 50 per cent for life, his disability pension claim was rejected, leading him to approach the High Court.

Allowing the petition, the Court quashed the AFT order and directed the authorities to grant disability pension at 50 per cent for life. It ordered payment of arrears from the date of discharge and directed that the amount be released within eight weeks, failing which interest at 12 per cent per annum will be payable.

- ANI

Share this article:

Reader Comments

P
Priyanka N
This is such a relief. My father served in the Army and developed hypertension after years of service. The bureaucracy always finds ways to deny benefits. The court is right—military life is inherently stressful. Just because you're not on the front line doesn't mean you're on a vacation. Hope this sets a precedent for many veterans fighting similar battles.
R
Robert G
While I respect the court's intent to support veterans, I hope this doesn't open the door for claims where genuine personal lifestyle choices are the primary cause. The judgment seems balanced as it insists on establishing a connection to service conditions. The key is fair assessment, not a blanket approval.
A
Aman W
Finally, some sense! Serving for 40 years and then being told your heart disease is a "lifestyle disorder" is shameful. The Medical Board and AFT clearly overstepped. The court's point about linking a cardiac condition to duties in the last 14 days being illogical is spot on. These institutions need more accountability.
K
Kavya N
A very important ruling for the mental health of our forces too. The constant readiness, uncertainty, and discipline take a silent toll. Calling it a lifestyle issue trivializes their sacrifice. Hope the authorities implement this quickly and clear the backlog of pending cases. Jai Hind!
D
David E
Interesting read. The legal principle established here—that the environment of service is the critical factor, not the location—seems robust. The 12% interest penalty for delayed payment is a strong incentive for the administration to act. A well-reasoned judgment.

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50