Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007: Section 14 is mentioned as the section under which the appellant filed O.A. No. 3977 of 2013 before the Armed Forces Tribunal, contending entitlement to disability pension. Section 30 is mentioned as the section under which the appeal was filed against the order dated 22.01.2018 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal. Section 31(1) is mentioned as the section under which leave to appeal was granted in the hearing held on 19.03.2024.
Armed Forces Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2008: Rule 18 is mentioned as the rule under which the appellant filed a review application for review of the order dated 26.02.2016.
Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961: Regulation 173 deals with the primary condition for the grant of disability pension. It states that a disability pension consisting of service element and disability element may be granted to an individual invalided out of service due to a disability attributable to or aggravated by military service in non-battle casualty and assessed at 20% or over. The question of attributability is determined under Appendix II. Regulation 183 states that disability pension consists of service and disability elements. If invalided out before service completion due to attributable disability assessed below 20%, an award equal to the service element is granted.
Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982: Rule 4 states that invaliding from service is a necessary condition for disability pension. An individual in a lower medical category at release than at recruitment will be treated as invalidated. Rule 5 outlines the approach to entitlement, stating that evaluation of disabilities shall be based on the presumption that the concerned member was in sound physical and mental condition while entering service except as to physical disabilities noted or recorded at the time of entrance. It is also to be presumed that in the event of him being discharged from service on medical grounds, any deterioration in his health which has taken place is due to service. Rule 9 states that the onus of proof is on the authority, not the claimant. A disabled member is not required to prove entitlement, and benefits are to be given more liberally. Rule 14(b) provides a legal presumption that a disease leading to discharge or death will ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in service if no note of it was made at the time of acceptance for military service. However, if medical opinion says the disease could not have been detected before entering military service, then such a disease would not be deemed to have arisen during service provided reasons are recorded.
Constitution of India, 1949: Article 14 is discussed in the context of whether denying benefits to those who retired/were invalided before 01.01.1996, while granting them to those who retired after that date, would constitute a violation of the Article.
General Principles of Law: The judgment discusses the principle that beneficial provisions, such as those for disability pension, should be interpreted liberally to benefit those intended. It also discusses the principle that the burden of proof lies on the employer to demonstrate that a disease or disability is not attributable to military service, especially when the individual was deemed fit at the time of entry into service. The judgment also emphasizes the importance of upholding the morale of the armed forces.