Delhi HC Grants 50% Disability Pension for Life, Says ‘Lifestyle Disorder’ Tag No Ground to Deny Service Benefit

Setting aside an order of the Armed Forces Tribunal, the Delhi High Court has directed the grant of 50% disability pension for life to a retired officer of the Indian Air Force, holding that branding a medical condition as a “lifestyle disorder” cannot, by itself, defeat a claim rooted in long years of military service.

The ruling reinforces the principle that the decisive question is whether the disability is attributable to or aggravated by service, not whether it arose in a combat zone or during a peace posting.

A Division Bench comprising Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora found the Medical Board’s reasoning deficient.

The Court noted that merely describing hypertension or heart disease as lifestyle disorders, without identifying specific conduct, negligence, or medically established personal risk factors attributable to the officer, did not satisfy the legal threshold required to deny pensionary benefits.

Importantly, the Board itself had recorded that the conditions were not the result of misconduct.

The officer, who had served for over four decades and was medically fit at the time of enrolment, developed primary hypertension during service and later underwent open-heart surgery after being diagnosed with severe coronary artery disease.

Though a Release Medical Board assessed his composite disability at 50% for life, it concluded that the ailments were neither attributable to nor aggravated by service conditions.

On that basis, his disability pension claim was rejected, prompting him to seek judicial review.

In examining the broader legal framework, the High Court referred to the settled approach under the Entitlement Rules governing disability pension for armed forces personnel.

Courts have consistently interpreted these rules as beneficial in nature, requiring a liberal construction in favour of service members. Where a disability manifests during service and is assessed at a qualifying percentage, the presumption ordinarily tilts towards service connection unless the employer clearly demonstrates the absence of nexus.

The Bench underscored that military life cannot be compartmentalised into “stressful” field areas and “stress-free” peace stations.

Even non-operational postings demand strict discipline, extended hours, constant mobility, family separation, and readiness for deployment, conditions capable of exerting cumulative physical and psychological strain.

Against this backdrop, the Court held that it is legally untenable to reject a claim solely on the ground that the officer was not posted in an active combat zone at the time the disease surfaced.

The judgment also addressed arguments relating to obesity and other lifestyle considerations. The Court observed that such factors were neither expressly cited nor medically substantiated in the Board’s findings as causative elements. Introducing them at a later stage, or relying on generalised assumptions about lifestyle diseases, was impermissible.

The High Court clarified that being overweight, without more, cannot automatically establish that hypertension or cardiac disease is self-inflicted or disconnected from service.

Further, the Court found the Medical Board’s attempt to link the cardiac condition to duties performed in the preceding 14 days logically flawed. Chronic conditions such as coronary artery disease typically develop over years, and attributing or denying service nexus on the basis of an arbitrary temporal window lacked medical coherence.

Quashing the AFT’s order, the High Court directed the authorities to grant disability pension at 50 per cent for life. It also ordered payment of arrears from the date of discharge, stipulating that the dues be released within eight weeks, failing which interest at 12 per cent per annum would apply.

By restoring the officer’s entitlement, the Court has reaffirmed a consistent judicial stance: administrative authorities must ground decisions affecting pension rights in clear medical reasoning and legal standards.

Labelling a condition as a lifestyle disorder, without a demonstrated break in service nexus, cannot override the constitutional commitment to fairness and the protective framework governing the welfare of armed forces personnel.

Case Title: Union of India v. 627281 EX MWO (HFO) Tejpal Singh

Bench: Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Judgment Date: 19.01.2026