MP High Court: Soldier Acclimatization Injury Pension Affirmed

• The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld a lifelong disability pension for Naik Ram Prasad Rathore, who suffered a back injury during military service.
• Rathore's injury occurred from a fall during mandatory high-altitude acclimatization in Leh, leading to his premature discharge.
• The court ruled that injuries sustained during acclimatization are directly connected to military duty and thus attributable to military service.
• This decision reinforces the legal presumption that a soldier's medical discharge due to disability is attributable to service unless proven otherwise by the Medical Board.
• The ruling clarifies the broad interpretation of 'in service' under Regulation 95 of the Pension Regulations for the Army for disability pension claims.

The court underscored that a soldier's presence at a high-altitude post for acclimatization constitutes an integral part of their military duty, rather than an act of personal discretion.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently affirmed a decision by the Armed Forces Tribunal, granting a lifelong disability pension to former Naik Ram Prasad Rathore. The court dismissed a challenge from the Union of India, which sought to overturn the Tribunal's award of a 20 percent disability pension, rounded off to 50 percent, for life. This significant ruling underscores the principle that injuries sustained during mandatory acclimatization periods are considered directly connected to military service, thus qualifying for disability benefits.

Naik Rathore, who enlisted in the Indian Army on March 10, 2002, with an entitlement to serve 22 years, was prematurely discharged on October 31, 2019, after 17 years and 4 months of service. His discharge followed his placement in a Permanent Low Medical Category, designated "P3 (Permanent)". The injury in question occurred on March 11, 2018, when Rathore fell from a double bunker bed while undergoing acclimatization in a high-altitude area in Leh, where his unit was deployed. This incident resulted in a severe back injury, later diagnosed as PIVD L5/S1 after treatment at 153 General Hospital, Leh, and Command Hospital, Chandimandir.

Despite Rathore's desire to continue serving in a low medical category, his Commanding Officer denied him a sheltered appointment, leading to his discharge. A Release Medical Board in August 2019 assessed his disability at 20 percent but controversially concluded it was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. Rathore subsequently approached the Armed Forces Tribunal, which allowed his application and awarded the disability pension, prompting the Union of India's unsuccessful appeal to the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

Representing the Union of India, Advocate Piyush Bhatnagar argued before a Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Anand Pathak that the Tribunal had erred. The Union contended that Rathore was not 'in service' at the time of the injury, as he was still undergoing acclimatization, and that the fall resulted from his own conduct. Further, it was submitted that Rathore had not reported the incident immediately, instead visiting the Medical Investigation Room independently and informing his seniors about the back pain only later.

The High Court, however, remained unconvinced by these arguments. It observed that the details of the fall from the bunker bed and the resulting injury were consistently documented in both Rathore's medical records and the proceedings before the Tribunal. Crucially, the court found that the Union of India failed to present any evidence suggesting that Rathore's disability stemmed from a pre-existing or unconnected condition, thereby undermining their claim that the injury was not attributable to military service.

The court underscored that a soldier's presence at a high-altitude post for acclimatization constitutes an integral part of their military duty, rather than an act of personal discretion. This interpretation was central to its decision to uphold the disability pension. The bench reinforced its stance by referencing key Supreme Court rulings, specifically *Dharamvir Singh vs. Union of India* and *Union of India vs. Rajbir Singh*. These precedents establish a presumption that when a soldier is discharged due to a medical disability, it is presumed to have originated during service and to be attributable to or aggravated by military service, unless the Medical Board provides recorded reasons to the contrary.

Furthermore, the Madhya Pradesh High Court affirmed the Tribunal's reliance on Regulation 95 of the Pension Regulations for the Army. This regulation stipulates that a soldier discharged in a permanent low medical category, without being offered alternative employment or a sheltered appointment, is deemed to have been 'invalided out of service.' This provision played a crucial role in determining Rathore's eligibility for the disability pension, solidifying the connection between his injury and his military service under the broad interpretation of 'in service' for disability benefits.

This ruling from the Madhya Pradesh High Court provides significant clarity regarding disability pension claims for military personnel, particularly those involving injuries sustained during mandatory acclimatization periods. It firmly establishes that such injuries are considered 'attributable to military service injury,' placing a higher burden on the Union of India to prove otherwise if they wish to deny benefits. The decision reinforces the broad interpretation of 'in service' for disability benefits under Regulation 95, ensuring that soldiers injured while performing essential duties, even those related to adapting to challenging environments, are adequately compensated.

The judgment serves as an important precedent for future cases involving military disability, particularly in the context of the demanding conditions faced by soldiers in high-altitude regions. It reaffirms the protective framework for service members, ensuring that their sacrifices and the inherent risks of their duty are recognized when assessing claims for disability pension India. Lawyers representing military personnel or the Union of India should note this ruling clarifies that injuries sustained during mandatory acclimatization periods are considered 'attributable to service' for disability pension claims, placing a higher burden on the Union to prove otherwise. It reinforces the broad interpretation of 'in service' under Regulation 95.

Lawyers representing military personnel or the Union of India should note this ruling clarifies that injuries sustained during mandatory acclimatization periods are considered 'attributable to service' for disability pension claims, placing a higher burden on the Union to prove otherwise. It reinforces the broad interpretation of 'in service' for disability benefits under Regulation 95.

Source: Based on recent legal reporting.