Jawans Won : Delhi High Court Finally Accepts AFT Orders In Favour Of Soldiers

What was the case ?

The Union of India filed a series of writ petitions in Delhi High Court challenging the orders passed by various Benches of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT). These orders had granted disability pension benefits to retired armed forces personnel (both officers and other ranks) whose disabilities were incurred during or after service.

Each case dealt with individual ex-servicemen who had either:

Been discharged in low medical category (LMC),
Acquired disabilities during the course of service, or
Had pre-existing conditions aggravated by military service.

📝 Core Legal Issues:

Entitlement to Disability Pension under Entitlement Rules, 2008 and Appendix II of the Pension Regulations.
Attributability or Aggravation of the disease/disability due to military service.
Binding nature of Medical Board findings versus judicial scrutiny by the AFT.
Scope of judicial review over expert medical opinions.

⚖️ Petitioner’s (Union of India) Submissions:

The AFT overstepped its jurisdiction by disregarding findings of medical boards that stated the diseases were “neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service” (NANA).
Medical evidence and procedural guidelines under the Entitlement Rules were ignored.
The AFT erroneously granted relief by presuming a causal connection without sufficient evidence.
Requested the High Court to quash AFT orders and uphold the decisions of Release Medical Boards (RMBs) and Invaliding Medical Boards (IMBs) which denied pension.

Exserviceman Family Must Know this Important Advisory of DSP Pension Account

👤 Respondent’s (Ex-servicemen) Submissions:

The disability occurred or worsened during service, entitling them to pension under settled principles.
The AFT rightly applied the benefit of doubt principle, especially where no pre-service disability was noted.
Relied on Supreme Court precedents (e.g., Dharamvir Singh vs UoI) holding that any deterioration during service period is presumed to be service-related unless clearly rebutted.
Highlighted inconsistencies in the conduct of Medical Boards and lack of detailed reasoning for denial.

🧾 AFT’s Findings (Challenged in HC):

Held that disabilities arising during service or aggravated due to stress and strain of military duty attract eligibility under pension rules.
In multiple cases, the AFT directed the Union to pay arrears of disability pension, often with interest.

⚖️ High Court’s Final Order (01 July 2025):

After hearing detailed arguments and examining each batch of petitions, the Delhi High Court dismissed all writ petitions filed by the Union of India. Key observations include:

No perversity or legal infirmity was found in AFT’s interpretation of law.
The AFT’s reliance on Supreme Court judgments and statutory rules was valid.
The benefit of doubt principle was rightly applied in favor of ex-servicemen.
Medical board opinions, while relevant, are not infallible or beyond judicial review—particularly when inadequately reasoned.
AFT was justified in granting relief based on facts, circumstances, and binding precedents.

✅ Impact and Significance:

Reinforces judicial deference to service-related hardships and protection of veterans’ rights.
Clarifies that mere presence of NANA findings by medical boards cannot be the sole basis for denying disability pension.
Ensures that military personnel discharged in LMC with service-incurred or aggravated conditions are duly compensated.
Sets a precedent for dismissing blanket challenges against AFT decisions favoring ex-servicemen.

🙏 Prayer of the Defence Govt Authority Petitioners (UoI) which was Denied

To set aside/quash AFT orders granting disability pension.
To reinstate the authority of Medical Boards’ NANA findings.
To deny pension benefits to respondents based on lack of “clear causal link”.

📘 Conclusion:

The Delhi High Court has upheld the AFT’s pro-veteran stance, reaffirming the legal position that disabilities acquired or worsened during service must be viewed liberally in light of military duties. This judgment is a landmark reaffirmation of pension justice for veterans, and a call for reforms in medical evaluation and decision-making within the defence pension framework.