NEW DELHI: Quoting Raksha Mantri 2015 Report, which admitted that “many disabled soldiers in India are still denied disability benefits on hyper-technical reasons”, Supreme Court has pulled up Centre and the defence ministry for litigating against them in all forums of the judiciary – from tribunals to HCs and SC. It also highlighted that govt filed appeals after a long time in most of the cases.A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe noted that Raksha Mantri Report had recommended the immediate withdrawal of appeals pertaining to disability and pensionary benefits pending against soldiers with disabilities but said the recommendation had not been faithfully implemented. “Appeals such as these are filed and continue to be filed, even after the ministry of defence accepted the committee’s recommendation for withdrawal of this class of litigation,” the bench said, junking over 270 appeals filed by govt.The bench also examined the outcome of such cases in different judicial forums.“The sad part of this litigation is that, out of around 271 civil appeals and special leave petitions, most of them are barred by limitation. Many similar appeals that were barred by limitation have already been dismissed in the past; the present batch is only a small number that survive. Moreover, it is significant to note that the number of appeals rejected at the first appellate stage, after a dismissal by the release medical board, far exceeds those accepted,” SC said.According to information obtained under RTI Act, of the 2,997 appeals before the first appellate authority, 2,855 were rejected and only 142 appeals were accepted, the bench added. Before the second appellate authority, out of 456 appeals, 439 were rejected and only 17 accepted.
Share your thoughts in the comments
Be respectful · TOI community guidelines
The court examined Entitlement Rules 2008, passed in 2010 to replace the 1982 rules, and did not find any error in them. The 1982 Rules clearly create a presumption that if a member of the service is in sound physical and mental health at the time of entrance, then any disability at the time of discharge would be attributable to military service. The 2008 Rules, however, withdraw this presumption by adding a causal connection requirement. They say, “Mere fact that a disease has manifested during military service does not per se establish attributability to or aggravation by military service.”The bench upheld the new rules, saying, “The mere addition of a causal requirement and a removal of the presumption that when a member joins service healthy, and, if, he leaves with a disability, it ought to be attributable to the military service, does not, by itself, change the core scheme of the Entitlement Rules 2008 because the other beneficial provisions broadly remain untouched. The onus to prove that the member’s disability is not attributable to service still lies on the employer. The relevant rules regarding attributability and aggravation continue to hold that if cause of disability is unknown,… then the disability is attributable to service.”
