Disability pension is a crucial social security measure available to members of the Armed Forces who suffer disabilities attributable to or aggravated by military service. Given the unique nature of military duties, courts have consistently emphasised that pensionary benefits for disabled soldiers must be interpreted liberally and beneficially. However, disputes frequently arise when Medical Boards conclude that a disability is neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, resulting in the denial of disability pension.
In Balamurali Krishna M. v. Union of India (2026), the Kerala High Court addressed an important question: Can disability pension be denied solely on the basis of a Medical Board’s opinion that lacks adequate reasons? The Court answered this question in the negative and held that a bare medical opinion unsupported by detailed reasoning cannot justify rejection of disability pension claims.
The judgment reinforces the principles of fairness, transparency, and beneficial interpretation of pension rules governing Armed Forces personnel.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, Balamurali Krishna M., was enrolled in the Indian Army on 18 November 2004 and served for over 17 years before being discharged on 30 November 2021. At the time of discharge, the Release Medical Board assessed the following disabilities:
- Primary Hypertension – 30% disability for life.
- Obesity – 5% disability for life.
The composite disability was assessed at 33.5% for life. However, the Medical Board opined that both disabilities were neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service (NANA). Consequently, the authorities rejected the petitioner’s claim for disability pension.
After the rejection of his claim and dismissal of his statutory appeals, the petitioner approached the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), Kochi. The Tribunal upheld the denial of disability pension. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Kerala High Court.
Issues Before the Court
The principal issues before the High Court were:
- Whether the burden of proving entitlement to disability pension lay upon the claimant or the authorities.
- Whether the Medical Board’s opinion rejecting attributability and aggravation was adequately reasoned.
- Whether disability pension could be denied solely because the disease manifested during a peace posting.
- Whether describing a disease as a “lifestyle disorder” was sufficient to deny disability pension.
Entitlement Rules and Burden of Proof
Rule 7 of the Entitlement Rules, 2008
The Court examined Rule 7 of the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 2008, which provides:
Ordinarily the claimant will not be called upon to prove the condition of entitlement. However, where the claim is preferred after 15 years of discharge, retirement, invalidment, or release, the burden of proof would lie on the claimant.
The Tribunal had taken the view that the petitioner was not entitled to the presumptions available under the earlier Entitlement Rules of 1982 and therefore could not claim disability pension merely because a disability existed at the time of discharge.
The High Court disagreed with this interpretation.
Reliance on Bhaskaran Case
The Court relied upon its earlier decision in Union of India v. Bhaskaran (2024 KHC 7223), where it held that for claims raised within 15 years of discharge, the primary burden of proof continues to rest on the Department. Only in delayed claims filed after 15 years does the burden shift entirely to the claimant.
Since the petitioner pursued his claim immediately after rejection and within the prescribed period, the authorities were required to justify the denial of disability pension with convincing evidence and reasons.
Medical Board’s Findings
The Release Medical Board justified its conclusions as follows:
For Hypertension
The Board stated that:
- The disease arose during a peace tenure.
- There was no close time association with field duty, counter-insurgency operations, or high-altitude service.
- There was no evidence of stress or strain due to military service.
- Therefore, the disease was NANA (Neither Attributable Nor Aggravated).
For Obesity
The Board simply stated:
Lifestyle disorder, hence NANA.
The Court found these observations inadequate and unsupported by any meaningful reasoning.
Can Posting in a Peace Area Defeat a Pension Claim?
A significant aspect of the judgment concerns the misconception that diseases arising in peace stations are automatically unrelated to military service.
The Court referred to the Delhi High Court decision in Union of India v. Col. Balbir Singh (Retd.) (2025), which interpreted Regulation 423 of the Regulations for Medical Services of the Armed Forces, 2010.
The regulation expressly states that it is immaterial whether the disability occurred:
- In a field area,
- In an active service area, or
- Under normal peace conditions.
The real test is whether a causal connection exists between military service and the disability. The Delhi High Court further observed that military life remains stressful even at peace stations due to:
- Strict discipline,
- Long working hours,
- Constant operational readiness,
- Frequent transfers,
- Separation from family,
- Continuous training requirements,
- Uncertainty regarding deployment.
The Kerala High Court endorsed this reasoning and held that the mere fact that a disease manifested during a peace posting cannot justify the denial of disability pension.
Hypertension and Military Service
The Court recognised that hypertension is a condition that may be influenced by prolonged stress and strain. The Medical Board’s conclusion that there was “no evidence of stress and strain due to military service” was unsupported by any analysis of:
- The petitioner’s service profile,
- Operational history,
- Nature of duties,
- Service conditions, or
- Medical records.
The Court observed that when a soldier has rendered long years of military service, the Medical Board bears a substantial responsibility to explain why the disease is not attributable to or aggravated by service.
A mere assertion is not enough.
Is Calling a Disease a Lifestyle Disorder Sufficient?
The Medical Board described obesity as a lifestyle disorder and rejected the claim on that basis alone. The Court found this reasoning unsatisfactory.
It relied upon the Delhi High Court’s observation that lifestyles differ from person to person, and therefore a general statement that a disease is a “lifestyle disorder” cannot by itself justify denial of disability pension. The Medical Board must examine and record specific facts relating to the individual concerned.
Without such individualised analysis, the conclusion becomes arbitrary.
Requirement of Reasoned Medical Opinions
The most important contribution of this judgment lies in its insistence on reasoned decision-making. The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajumon T.M. v. Union of India (2025), where it was held that when a Medical Board’s opinion lacks reasons, actions based on such opinion can be judicially reviewed and questioned.
The Court emphasised that:
- Medical Boards perform an important adjudicatory function.
- Their conclusions affect valuable pensionary rights.
- Such conclusions must be supported by intelligible reasons.
- Mere conclusions without explanation are insufficient.
This requirement aligns with broader principles of administrative law, where reasoned orders are regarded as an essential safeguard against arbitrariness.
Beneficial Interpretation of Pension Rules
The Court also relied on the Supreme Court decision in Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya v. District Development Officer, Dahod (2022), which reiterated the principle that social welfare legislation must receive a liberal and beneficial interpretation.
The Supreme Court held that where two interpretations are possible, courts should adopt the interpretation that preserves and advances the benefit intended by the legislation.
Applying this principle, the Kerala High Court noted that disability pension rules are beneficial in nature and intended to protect former service personnel. Therefore, technical or unsupported grounds should not defeat legitimate claims.
Findings of the Court
The High Court concluded that:
- The claim had been pursued within 15 years of discharge.
- The burden of proof remained primarily on the authorities.
- The Medical Board’s reasoning was inadequate.
- Posting in a peace station is not a valid standalone ground to reject attributability.
- Merely describing obesity as a lifestyle disorder is insufficient.
- The denial of disability pension based on a bare medical opinion was legally unsustainable.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the Armed Forces Tribunal’s order and held that the petitioner was entitled to the disability element of pension.
Directions Issued
The Court directed the authorities to:
- Issue a corrigendum Pension Payment Order (PPO).
- Grant disability pension to the petitioner.
- Complete the process within three months.
The Court further ordered that if payment was not made within the stipulated period, the unpaid arrears would carry interest at 7% per annum.
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court’s decision in Balamurali Krishna M. v. Union of India marks a significant development in military pension jurisprudence. The Court made it clear that disability pension cannot be denied merely because a Medical Board records a conclusion that a disease is neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. Such conclusions must be supported by concrete facts, proper analysis, and detailed reasons.
The judgment recognises that military service, whether in combat zones or peace stations, carries inherent stress and demands. It also underscores that beneficial pensionary schemes exist to safeguard those who have devoted years of their lives to national service.
By holding that a bare Medical Board opinion is insufficient to reject disability pension claims, the Court has strengthened the rights of veterans and reinforced the principles of fairness, transparency, and reasoned decision-making in military administration.