Facts: A batch of writ petitions challenged orders from the Armed Forces Tribunal, Mumbai, which granted disability pensions to Army and Navy personnel. The Union of India contested these orders, arguing that the disabilities (like hypertension, diabetes, etc.) were not attributable to military service, especially since many personnel were diagnosed while posted at peace stations. The Union of India relied on opinions from Release Medical Boards stating the diseases were not service-related.
Procedural Posture: The case reached the High Court of Judicature at Bombay via writ petitions filed by the Union of India, challenging the orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Mumbai.
Issue: Whether the Armed Forces Tribunal erred in granting disability pensions to military personnel when the Release Medical Board opined that the disabilities were not attributable to or aggravated by military service, and whether the Pension Entitlement Rules-2008 restrict the claim of disability pension in such cases?
Holding: The High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the Union of India, upholding the Armed Forces Tribunal's decisions.
Reasoning: The Court held that the Tribunal has a duty to interpret beneficial provisions under the rules liberally, not restrictively. The Court emphasized that the service records have substantial evidentiary value. While the Medical Board's assessment is recommendatory, the Tribunal must consider all relevant facts. The Court cited several Supreme Court judgments, including "Dharamvir Singh", emphasizing that a member of the military service is presumed to possess sound health upon entering service, and any deterioration is presumed due to service. The onus to prove otherwise lies on the employer. The Court also noted that the Pension Entitlement Rules-2008 do not drastically change the pre-2008 regime and that a causal connection between disability and military service is still relevant, but should not be used to deny benefits unfairly. The requirement for the Medical Board to provide clear and cogent reasons for their opinions is crucial.