After 31 yrs, HC relief to ex-sepoy denied pension

Jaipur: A division bench of the Rajasthan High Court has granted ‘invalid pension’ to a disabled ex-serviceman who was denied the benefit for over three decades, observing that the Army failed to properly assess his disability before discharging him from service.

A division bench comprising justices Sudesh Bansal and Ravi Chirania partly allowed the petition filed by ex-Sepoy Om Prakash of Sikar in its order Monday and set aside the Aug 2022 order of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Jaipur, to the extent that it denied him ‘invalid pension’.

The petitioner was represented by advocate Aslam Khan, while Gaurav Jain appeared for the Union of India.

Khan said that Om Prakash was enrolled in the Army Service Corps in June 1984 and was discharged in June 1995 after serving for just under 11 years.

“He was discharged under Rule 13 (3), Item III (v) of the Army Rules, 1954, after being considered an undesirable soldier. We approached the High Court in 2009, challenging the discharge order and seeking invalid pension,” Khan said, adding that Om Prakash was hospitalised twice during his tenure and diagnosed with Radial Nerve Palsy (Right), a neurological disorder.

“Despite his medical history, Army authorities discharged him without conducting a Release Medical Board and left the medical category column in his discharge records blank,” Khan said.

A Release Medical Board is an official medical evaluation conducted by the Army for personnel who are retiring or being discharged.

He argued that despite suffering from a service-related neurological disability and completing more than 10 years of qualifying service, Om Prakash was denied invalid pension because the Army failed to conduct a Release Medical Board before discharge and ignored a documented medical condition.

In its order, the court observed that the “Army failed to explain why no medical examination was conducted despite the soldier having been hospitalised repeatedly and even admitted to hospital the day before his discharge. These omissions suggested an attempt to conceal his medical condition”.

The court further held that the petitioner’s disability arose during military service and was attributable to or aggravated by service conditions.

The High Court further observed that the petitioner fulfilled the minimum qualifying service of 10 years required under Regulations 197 and 198 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961.

It rejected the contention that five red ink entries automatically disentitled him from pensionary benefits, observing that disciplinary infractions could not override a valid claim for invalid pension.