Court dismisses Union of India's delayed writ petition, affirming presumption of sound health at recruitment and employer's burden to disprove service aggravation
In a significant judgment delivered on August 19, 2026, the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court comprising Justices K. Natarajan and Johnson John dismissed a writ petition filed by the Union of India challenging an order of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), Regional Bench Kochi. The Tribunal had granted disability pension to Ex-Havildar Binu C., who was discharged from the Indian Army with a 30% disability for life due to Primary Hypertension, ruling that his disability was aggravated by military service.
The respondent, Ex-Havildar Binu C., joined the Army on June 30, 1993, and served for 26 years before being discharged on June 30, 2019. The Release Medical Board (RMB) assessed his disability due to Primary Hypertension at 30% for life but initially concluded that the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. Consequently, the disability pension element was denied. Following rejection of statutory appeals, the respondent approached the AFT, which reversed the RMB's view. The Tribunal held that under Regulation 423 of the Regulations for Medical Services for Armed Forces, 1983, and Supreme Court precedents, a recruit is presumed to be in sound health at the time of enlistment unless recorded otherwise. Any subsequent deterioration is to be presumed attributable to service unless the employer proves otherwise.
The High Court, after hearing arguments from Sri. C. Dinesh representing the Union of India and Sri. Adi Narayanan for the respondent, upheld the Tribunal's decision. The Court reiterated the legal principle from landmark Supreme Court rulings such as Sukhvinder Singh v. Union of India (2014), Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India (2013), and Bijender Singh v. Union of India (2025), affirming that the burden of proof lies with the employer to show that a disability is not connected to military service.
Rejecting the Medical Board's reasoning that the disease's onset at peace stations and its classification as a lifestyle disorder exclude service connection, the Court emphasized that such reasons alone are insufficient to deny attributability under Regulation 423 and Supreme Court guidelines.
However, the Court also dismissed the Union of India's writ petition primarily on grounds of inordinate delay. The petition was filed 606 days after the Tribunal's order, without exhausting the statutory appellate remedy available under Section 30 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, which prescribes a 90-day limit for appeals to the Supreme Court. The Court emphasized that Article 226's discretionary writ jurisdiction cannot be used to revive a cause of action barred by limitation, citing the principle of interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium - the public interest in ending litigation.
The judgment underlines the judiciary's consistent approach to protecting the rights of armed forces personnel in disability pension claims and reinforces the importance of adhering to procedural timelines for appeals and writ petitions.
Bottom Line:
Armed Forces - Disability pension - Presumption of sound health at the time of recruitment - Tribunal's finding of disability 'Primary Hypertension' as aggravated by service conditions upheld - Petitioners' belated writ petition dismissed due to inordinate delay and lack of merit.
Statutory provision(s):
Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 Section 30, Regulation 423 of Regulations for Medical Services for Armed Forces, 1983, Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Union of India v. Ex Havildar Binu C., (Kerala)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2969672
