Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench Col Arun Sood (Retd) vs. Union of India & Ors. OA 2465/2021
A Familiar Rejection Letter
Ask any veteran who has applied for disability pension. The story is almost always the same.
The Release Medical Board accepts one disability. It rejects the other two. The reason given is a single line “neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service.” No explanation. No medical reasoning. Just those seven words, stamped on a form.
In Col Arun Sood (Retd) vs. Union of India (OA 2465/2021), the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, looked at that line and asked a simple question: why?
The Department had no answer. Disability granted, it tis hat simple Yes/ No.
The Facts in Brief
Col Arun Sood was commissioned into the Indian Army on 7 March 1992. He took premature retirement on 3 July 2019, after more than 27 years in uniform.
His Release Medical Board found three disabilities:
| Disability | Percentage | What the Board Said |
| PIVD (slipped disc) | 40% | Aggravated by military service ✅ |
| DM-II (Type 2 Diabetes) | 20% | Neither attributable nor aggravated ❌ |
| PHT (Primary Hypertension) | 30% | Neither attributable nor aggravated ❌ |
His claim for the diabetes and blood pressure was rejected. He appealed in 2020. Rejected again. He appealed in 2021. Rejected again. He then approached the Tribunal under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.
What the Officer Argued
1. “The Army itself certified me fit.” He cleared a strict medical examination at the time of commissioning. He remained in SHAPE-I -the highest medical category for fifteen years. If he was fit then, the disease clearly began during service.
2. “The presumption is in my favour.” Relying on Dharamvir Singh vs. Union of India, he argued that when there is no record of a disease at the time of enrolment, the law presumes it arose during service. The employer must then prove otherwise.
3. “Round off my disability.” Citing Union of India vs. Ram Avtar, he asked that his combined 70% disability be rounded off to 75% for life.
What the Government Argued
The Union of India relied on two provisions:
- Rule 81(a), Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008– disability pension needs two things together: the disability must be attributable to or aggravated by service, and it must be 20% or more.
- Para 5, Entitlement Rules, 2008– simply because a disease appears during service does not automatically mean service caused it.
In law, this kind of bare claim is called an ipse dixit– an assertion backed only by the authority of the person saying it, not by reasons. That was the weakness the Tribunal exposed.
The Tribunal’s Findings, Three Points That Matter
1. The Burden of Proof Is on the Department, Not the Soldier
The Tribunal studied how the Entitlement Rules have changed over time. The 1982 Rules gave an automatic presumption in favour of the soldier. The 2008 Rules removed that automatic presumption. But removing a presumption is not the same as shifting the burden.
Reading Rule 7, the Tribunal held that where a claim is made within fifteen years of discharge, the onus probandi, the burden of proof stays with the Department. The soldier does not have to prove a negative.
“The RMB cannot merely assert, without adequate reasons, that the disease, though contracted during military service, is not attributable to such service.”
This is the heart of the judgment.
2. A Medical Board Must Give Reasons A “Speaking Order”
The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajumon T.M. vs. Union of India.
A Medical Board’s opinion must be a speaking order, an order that itself explains the reasons behind the conclusion. An opinion that is devoid (completely lacking) of reasons, the Tribunal said, “would strike at the root of the action taken.” Put simply: a tick mark in a box is not a medical opinion. It is a perfunctory (done as a mere formality, without real care) exercise. And the law will not uphold it. Ex nihilo nihil fit, from nothing, nothing comes. A conclusion built on no reasons produces no legal effect.
3. Peace Postings Do Not Break the Link with Service
This is the most useful part of the judgment for serving officers and veterans. The Department’s usual argument is that lifestyle diseases developing during a peace posting cannot be connected to service. The Tribunal rejected this on three grounds:
(a) Peace stations are not stress-free. Military service carries stress everywhere rigid discipline, unpredictable working hours, separation from family, frequent transfers and permanent operational readiness. No civilian job replicates this.
(b) Diseases appear late. Diabetes and hypertension are often the cumulative sequelae (the long-term after-effects) of years spent in field areas, high altitudes and counter-insurgency postings. The damage happens early. The diagnosis comes later.
(c) Regulation 423(a) settles it. Under the Regulations for Medical Services of the Armed Forces, 2010, it is immaterial whether the disability arose in a field area or under normal peace conditions. The Department’s own rulebook defeats its own argument.
Given 27 years of service and no specific reason recorded by the Board, the Tribunal found the rejection untenable.
What the Tribunal Ordered
Disabilities accepted DM-II @20% and PHT @30% held attributable to / aggravated by military service, along with the already accepted PIVD @40%.
Rounding off — The composite disability of 70% for life rounded off to 75% for life, effective from the date of retirement.
Timeline and penalty — A Corrigendum PPO must be issued within three months. If the Department fails, the arrears will carry interest at 6% per annum.
What This Means for You
If your rejection letter gives no reasons, it is weak. The law now clearly requires the Medical Board to explain why a disease is being disconnected from your service. Silence is not expertise.
Ask for your RMB proceedings. Obtain the complete AFMSF-16 and the Board’s remarks. If the “reasons” column is blank, vague, or simply repeats the conclusion, you have a strong case.
Check your SHAPE record. A long period in SHAPE-I before the disease appeared strengthens the presumption that service played a role.
Do not delay. The Tribunal’s reasoning on burden of proof is anchored to a claim raised within fifteen years of discharge.
Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt, the law helps those who are watchful of their rights, not those who sleep over them.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I get disability pension for diabetes or high blood pressure? Yes. If you were medically fit when you joined and the disease appeared during service, it can be held attributable to or aggravated by service provided it is assessed at 20% or more and the Medical Board has not recorded proper reasons against you.
What is a “speaking order”? An order that gives the reasons for its own conclusion. Following Rajumon T.M. vs. Union of India, a Medical Board opinion marked “neither attributable nor aggravated” without any reasoning is not legally sustainable.
What does “rounding off” mean in disability pension? Following Union of India vs. Ram Avtar: 20%–50% is rounded off to 50%, 50%–75% to 75%, and above 75% to 100%. In this case, 70% became 75% for life.
My disease started during a peace posting. Does that hurt my case? No. Regulation 423(a) of the Regulations for Medical Services, 2010 says it makes no difference whether the disability arose in a field area or in peace conditions.
Who has to prove the case me or the Army? If your claim is within seven years of discharge, the Department must prove that your disability is unconnected with service. You do not have to prove that it is connected.
What happens if the Corrigendum PPO is not issued on time? Here, the Tribunal directed issue within three months, failing which arrears carry 6% interest per annum. Continued default can be taken up through contempt proceedings.
Final Word
A soldier’s medical file is not a record of personal carelessness. Very often, it is the receipt for a career spent in conditions that no civilian job demands.
This judgment restores a simple principle: if the State wants to deny a pension, it must say why clearly, in writing, and on medical grounds.
Ajit Kakkar & Associates, New Delhi, appears before the Supreme Court of India, Delhi High Court and other high courts, the Central Administrative Tribunal and Armed Forces Tribunal (Principal Bench) in matters related to Service law for Army, Navy, Air Force, BSF, CRPF, CISF, ITBP, Coast Guard, Assam Rifles, GREF, Delhi Police, Civilian Govt Employees and other Govt employees.