The Kerala High Court has granted disability pension to a former Indian Army soldier whose claim had earlier been rejected by military authorities and the Armed Forces Tribunal. The court held that a disability pension cannot be denied merely on the basis of a medical opinion that lacks sufficient reasoning and directed the authorities to issue a revised Pension Payment Order within three months.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Balamurali Krishna M., served in the Indian Army for more than 17 years before being discharged on November 30, 2021. At the time of his release, a Medical Board assessed him with Primary Hypertension and Obesity, resulting in a composite disability of 33.5% for life. However, the Board concluded that the disabilities were neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. Based on that opinion, his claim for disability pension was rejected.
After his appeals failed, he approached the Armed Forces Tribunal, Kochi Bench. The Tribunal also declined relief, prompting him to move the Kerala High Court.
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that under the Entitlement Rules, 2008, the burden of proving non-entitlement primarily rests on the authorities when a claim is raised within 15 years of discharge.
The Division Bench agreed with this contention.
The court observed that since the petitioner had pursued his claim immediately after its rejection and well within the prescribed period, the authorities could not shift the entire burden onto him. The judgment noted that, in such cases, “the onus of proof will be primarily on the Department.”
The Medical Board had stated that the petitioner developed hypertension during a peace posting and that there was no evidence of stress or strain caused by military service. It also described obesity as a lifestyle disorder.
The High Court referred to recent judicial precedents emphasizing that military service can involve stress even in peace stations and that diseases cannot automatically be treated as unrelated to service merely because they arose outside operational areas.
The bench further noted that simply labeling a condition as a “lifestyle disorder” is insufficient unless individual circumstances are properly examined and recorded.
The bench observed:
“The denial of disability pension based on a medical opinion without providing full reasons to support the opinion cannot be said to be valid.”
The court also reiterated that pensionary and social welfare provisions should receive a liberal and beneficial interpretation in favour of eligible claimants.
Allowing the writ petition, the Kerala High Court set aside the Armed Forces Tribunal’s order and held that the petitioner was entitled to the disability element of pension. The court directed the authorities to issue a corrigendum Pension Payment Order granting disability pension within three months.
It further ordered that if the payment is delayed beyond that period, the unpaid arrears will carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum.
Case Details:
Case Title: Balamurali Krishna M. v. Union of India & Others
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 2893 of 2026
Judges: Justice K. Natarajan and Justice Johnson John
Decision Date: May 29, 2026
