AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI.J (Oral)
In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 15.07.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No. 2-Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in OA No.233 of 2023 by which, respondent No.1 has been held entitled for the grant of benefit of Special Family Pension after the death of her husband on the ground that the ailment of 'METASTATIC CARCINOMA RECTUM PROGRESSIVE' suffered by the late husband of respondent No. 1, is to be considered as attributable to and aggravated by the military service.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the the said ailment of 'METASTATIC CARCINOMA RECTUM PROGRESSIVE' suffered by the late husband of respondent No. 1 cannot be attributed to or aggravated by the military service as the same relates to the genes of a particular person and any such disease , which relates to the malignancies in genes of a person cannot be said to have been arisen during military service. Further, he contends that the arrears of pension be also restricted to three years.
On the other hand, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that once the disease of 'METASTATIC CARCINOMA RECTUM PROGRESSIVE' has been declared as attributable to military service by the petitioners, then subsequently, the claim of the petitioners to deny special family pension to respondent no.1 cannot be allowed especially when the said benefit has already been granted by the learned Tribunal.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file with their able assistance.
The facts of the case in a nutshell are that the husband of respondent no.1 herein was commissioned in the Army on 11.12.1993 in medical category shape-1 (AYE). During the service he was diagnosed with 'METASTATIC CARCINOMA RECTUM PROGRESSIVE' and his death was declared attributable to military service.
It may be noticed that as per the principle settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Dharamvir Singh Vs. Union of India and others, (2013) 7 SCC 316, which has also been considered by the Tribunal in the impugned order dated 15.07.2025 (Annexure P-1), any officer serving in the Armed Forces, who had undergone the medical examination at the time of his/her selection and was not found suffering from any such disease at that time on the basis of which, he/she has been discharged from service, such an employee is entitled for the benefit of presumption in his/her favour as per Rule 5 and 9 of ‘Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982’ that the said disability has been contracted by the employee during his service career and is, thus, entitled for the benefit of disability pension. The relevant para Nos. 30 and 32 of the judgment in Dharamvir Singh’s case (supra) are as under:-
“30.In the present case it is undisputed that no note of any disease has been recorded at the time of appellant's acceptance for military service. The respondents have failed to bring on record any document to suggest that the appellant was under treatment for such a disease or by hereditary he is suffering from such disease. In absence of any note in the service record at the time of acceptance of joining of appellant it was incumbent on the part of the Medical Board to call for records and look into the same before coming to an opinion that the disease could not have been detected on medical examination prior to the acceptance for military service, but nothing is on the record to suggest that any such record was called for by the Medical Board or looked into it and no reasons have been recorded in writing to come to the conclusion that the disability is not due to military service. In fact, non-application of mind of Medical Board is apparent from Clause (d) of paragraph 2 of the opinion of the Medical Board, which is as follows:
“(d)In the case of a disability under C the board should state what exactly in their opinion is the cause thereof. YES Disability is not related to mil service”
32.In spite of the aforesaid provisions, the Pension Sanctioning Authority failed to notice that the Medical Board had not given any reason in support of its opinion, particularly when there is no note of such disease or disability available in the service record of the appellant at the time of acceptance for military service. Without going through the aforesaid facts the Pension Sanctioning Authority mechanically passed the impugned order of rejection based on the report of the Medical Board. As per Rules 5 and 9 of 'Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982', the appellant is entitled for presumption and benefit of presumption in his favour. In absence of any evidence on record to show that the appellant was suffering from "Genrealised seizure (Epilepsy)” at the time of acceptance of his service, it will be presumed that the appellant was in sound physical and mental condition at the time of entering the service and deterioration in his health has taken place due to service.”
When law settled in Dharamvir Singh’s case (supra) is applied in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it may be noticed that the disease from which the husband of respondent No.1 was found suffering from while in service and ultimately died of, does not surface instantaneously on one day, rather it is a multi-stage process, wherein normal cells of body transform into malignant tumour cells, which can happen as a result of constant stress suffered by the patient concerned for a prolonged time. For a period of approximately 23 years, the husband of respondent No.1 was serving in the Army till the day of his death and keeping in view the various postings he was posted on and the stress which he encountered during such posting, it can be safely said that the said stress and strain for a prolonged time which resulted into cancer, was related to the job profile of the husband of respondent No.1 and was responsible for his death.
Furthermore, as per the Rules governing the employees of petitioners, except for the tobacco related cancer, which may form in a personnel due to smoking or prolonged tobacco use and the congenital chromosomal abnormalities, rest of the cancers which may surface in a personnel due to any other reason have been treated to be attributable to the military service. Further, the late husband of respondent No. 1 had rendered his service in the Army for a period of approximately 23 years hence, it cannot be accepted that ‘Cancer’ was not detected at the time of recruitment despite in actuality the said disease existing at that time so as to deny the benefit of special Family Pension to respondent No. 1-widow by stating that the same is neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, especially when the late husband of respondent No. 1 was serving the Army for a period of about 23 years and ultimately died of the same.
It may be noticed that in Chapter VI Guide to Medical officers (Military Pensions), 2002 the disease Carcinoma of Rectum has been treated to be attributable to or aggravated by the military service.
Further, the late husband of respondent no.1 has served the military service for around 23 years and keeping in view the various posting and the different type of food due to occupational exposure, there is very likelihood that the said factor has attributed the disease suffered by the husband of the respondent No. 1, which ultimately lead to his death. It has further been considered that the deceased personnel had been posted five times in high altitude and counter insurgency operations. Even otherwise, it is also to be kept in mind that in the Guide to Medical Officers (Military Pensions), 2002, under clause (f) of cancer guidelines paragraph 9, stress and strain of service has also been mentioned as a factor for causing cancers.
It cannot be said that all types of cancers are to be treated neither attributed to nor aggravated by the military service. It is only in case, of a tobacco related cancers, where the officer concerned was a habitual smoker or a prolonged tobacco user, the same has to be treated to be an exception, whereas, in the present case, the disease suffered by the late husband of respondent No.1 was 'METASTATIC CARCINOMA RECTUM PROGRESSIVE', which cannot be held to be neither attributed to or nor aggravated by the military service.
Qua the argument of petitioners regarding restriction of arrears in granting pension, it may be noticed that it is trite law that arrears of pension cannot be restricted as per the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3086 of 2012 titled as 'Balbir Singh Vs. Union of India and others', decided on 08.04.2016. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are as under:-
"XXX... The Tribunal was therefore justified in restoring the service element of the pension in favour of the appellant. The question however is whether the arrears could have been restricted to three years only. The Tribunal in our view need not have done so. That is because the appellant had a right to receive service element of the pension in light of Regulation 186 (supra), which right was valuable and ought to have been protected. The fact that the appellant had approached the Tribunal for redress belatedly was in the peculiar circumstances of the case no reason for the Tribunal to reduce the payment of arrears to three years only. We accordingly allow this appeal and modify the order passed by the Tribunal with the direction that the appellant shall be paid service element of the pension with effect from the date the said payment was stopped by the respondents. We however grant to the respondents three months time to calculate and release the arrears in favour of the appellant. In case the needful is not done within the time stipulated, the arrears payable to the appellant shall start earning interest at the rate of 9% from the date the period of three months expires till actual payment of the amount."
Recently again, the same issue has been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SGT Girish Kumar's case (supra), whereby it has been held that benefit of arrears is to be given from 01.01.1996 or 01.01.2006 as the case may be, in case of entitlement qua disability pension. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is as under:-
“15.Pension, as authoritatively settled by this Court, is neither a bounty nor an ex gratia payment dependent upon the grace of the State. It is a deferred portion of compensation for past service and, upon fulfilment of the governing conditions, matures into a vested and enforceable right. Pensionary entitlements, therefore, partake the character of property, and cannot be withheld, reduced, or extinguished except by authority of law. This principle applies with full vigour to disability pension, which is grounded not merely in length of service, but in the impairment suffered by a member of the Armed Forces in the course of, or attributable to, the service rendered to the nation. The disability pension is not a matter of largesse, but a recognition of sacrifice made in service of the nation.
16.The Union of India, as a model employer, is expected to act with fairness, consistency and even-handedness in the administration of benefits conferred upon those who have served the nation. When a benefit is recognised by a policy and affirmed by judicial pronouncement, its application cannot be selective or uneven. The judgment rendered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Ram Avtar’s case (supra) was a judgment in rem and, therefore, the benefit of same ought to have been extended by Union of India to the eligible exservicemen instead of requiring them to file original applications before the Tribunal seeking their entitlement.
17.It is pertinent to note that the Union of India itself had taken a conscious policy decision to pay arrears of disability pension to D.S. Nakara v Union of India, 1983 AIR SC 130, State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr., AIR 2013 SC 3383, Vijay Kumar v. Central Bank of India & Ors., 2025 INSC 848 all eligible ex-servicemen from 01.01.1996 or 01.01.2006, as the case may be. This position is clearly borne out from paragraph 2 of the letter dated 15.09.2014 issued by Deputy Secretary (Pension), Government of India, to Chiefs of Army, Navy and Air Force. The similar intent is also evident from paras 3 and 6 of the letter dated 10.10.2018 issued by Director, Department of Pension and Pensioner’s Welfare, Government of India, wherein civilian Medical Officers were granted revised disability benefit from 01.01.1996 or 01.01.2006.
18.The aforesaid communications reflect a conscious and deliberate policy choice on the part of Union of India to confer upon all eligible pensioners the benefit of arrears of disability pension with effect from 01.01.1996 or 01.01.2006, as the case may be. In view of decision of this Court in Ram Avtar (supra), the Government of India, by an order dated 18.04.2016, expressly conveyed its approval to the Chiefs of the Army, Navy and Air Force for implementation of the directions issued by the Courts and Tribunals granting the benefit of broad banding of the disability element to Armed Forces Personnel who had retired or were discharged on completion of engagement with disability, attributable to or aggravated by military service. from the date specified in the respective judicial orders.
19.The order dated 18.04.2016 was a conscious policy determination taken with full financial concurrence. Thus, where the State itself, by a conscious policy decision, has determined that arrears of disability pension are payable from a specified cut off date, it is not open to it to subsequently resile and contend that such arrears ought to be confined to a period of three years preceding the claim. To permit such a course, would amount to acknowledging the right in principle while denying its substantive content in effect. Any such deprivation of accrued arrears which has become due to ex-servicemen in view of judicial determination as well as policy decision taken by the Union of India itself, would constitute deprivation of property and would amount to infraction of Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
20.This Court has, in a consistent line of decisions, recognised that right to receive disability pension is a valuable right and once found due the benefit of the same has to he giyen from the once found due, the benefit of the same has to be given from the date it became due. The same cannot be curtailed by restricting K.J.S. Bhuttar v. Union of India & Anr., (supra); Davinder Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (supra); Madan Prasad Sinha v. Union of India & Ors., (supra); Piyush Bahuguna (Order dated 25.03.2022 passed in Diary No.10713/2021) and Bijender Singh v. Union of India (supra) the benefit to a period of three years preceding the filing of the original application. In the absence of any compelling reason to take a different view, we find no justification to depart from the view consistently taken by this Court.
21.The contention advanced on behalf of the Union of India that the claim for arrears of disability pension is barred by Limitation Act, cannot be accepted. The issue with regard to broad banding of disability pension attained finality only on 10.12.2014. Thereafter, Union of India in the order dated 18.04.2016 addressed to Chiefs of Army, Navy and Air Force acknowledged in clear terms that arrears of disability pension were to flow from 01.01.1996 without any curtailment. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the contention that the claims of ex-servicemen were barred by limitation does not deserve acceptance."
No other arguments have been raised.
Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances and as the learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to prove that the impugned order dated 15.07.2025 (Annexure P-1) is perverse, either on the basis of the facts or the settled principle of law, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, stands disposed of.