Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a writ petition filed by an ex-military cadet for the grant of ex-gratia allowance due to him developing a disability during his military training, a Single Judge Bench of Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J., allowed the petition and directed the grant of ex-gratia allowance along with arrears with an interest rate of 6 percent per annum within three months holding that the records clearly showed that the cadet suffered from the disability due to training.
Background
It was contended that on 03-05-1999, the cadet joined the Indian Army as a Commissioned Officer. During the course of strenuous physical training, he developed the disability of “osteoarthritis of right hip joint and avascular necrosis of head of femur.” The medical authorities recorded that the said disability developed after training and running and as a direct result of a fall during a bona fide military training exercise. The disability was assessed as progressive, and it could further worsen with continued military training. The respondents-authorities recorded this as a disability attributable to and aggravated by the military service itself. Consequently, the cadet was first placed in the low medical category but was finally invalidated out of service on 17-11-1999 due to the worsening of his medical condition.
Since no monthly ex-gratia allowance or disability pension was granted, the cadet submitted a representation to the authorities, but the claim was rejected on the ground that the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. Aggrieved, he filed the present petition.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that as per the Officers Training Academy (‘OTA’) MI Room records, the cadet felt severe pain in his right thigh during the military exercise, which was clearly recorded in the diagnosis undertaken by the military hospital. Further, the report on cases prepared by the authorities clearly showed that the injury was reported to have occurred due to severe military training, as undertaken by a pre-commissioned cadet.
The Court also noted that even in response to the specific query posed by the Court regarding whether the disability was attributable to service or whether the same was aggravated by service, the authorities reported that the injury was attributable to service and had aggravated as a result of undergoing training at the OTA. However, the medical board’s opinion did not reflect a consideration of the aforesaid MI record.
The Court stated that even if the disability was old, it had certainly been aggravated due to the rigorous military exercise/training. In this regard, the Court referred to the Union of India v. Rajbir Singh (2015) 12 SCC 264, wherein the Court held that a member was presumed to be in sound physical and medical condition while entering military service, except as to the physical disabilities noted or recorded at the time of entrance. In the event of being discharged from service on medical grounds at any subsequent stage, it must be presumed that any such deterioration in health that has taken place is due to such military service. The burden lies upon the Medical Board to prove that the diseases due to which an individual has been discharged could not have been detected on medical examination prior to acceptance of service and state the reasons for the same. Significantly, if any disability is so inconsequential that it could not be noticed and the same resurfaces due to rigorous military exercise/training, the resurfacing thereof cannot be dissected, for reasons without any basis, from the military training. The resurfacing is clearly attributable to the service conditions that have aggravated the resurfacing of such disease. Hence, even on that count, the disability cannot be held to be unattributable to or not aggravated by military training.
The Court further placed reliance on Sukhvinder Singh v. Union of India (2014) 14 SCC 364, wherein the Court set aside the Medical Board’s opinion that the petitioner sustained the disability before entering into service but remained undetected by the recruiting Medical Officer and granted disability pension to the petitioner therein. Further, the Court relied on Puneet Gupta v. Union of India 2016 SCC OnLine Del 3846, wherein the Court extended the benefit of ex-gratia awards to a Gentlemen Cadet for the injury that was sustained by him during the Court of training, by placing reliance upon the circular dated 16-04-1996, which was the same circular that was being relied upon by the authorities in the present case. The Court held that the present case was squarely covered by these judgments.
Thus, the Court held that there were no cogent reasons or circumstances established by the authorities to the satisfaction of the judicial conscience of the Court and that the disability suffered by the cadet was neither attributable nor aggravated on account of military service. Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside.
Consequently, the Court directed the authorities to release the ex-gratia award payable to the cadet as well as the arrears with an interest rate of 6 percent per annum within three months. In the event of non-release of the said benefits within the specified time, the officer responsible for causing the delay shall pay Rs 1 Lakh for every two months of delay.
[Parveen Salaria v. Union of India, Citation No. of 2024, decided on 06-02-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: Navdeep Singh and Srishti Sharma
For the respondent: Sr. Panel Counsel Somesh Gupta
