{"id":8967,"date":"2026-06-09T09:28:17","date_gmt":"2026-06-09T09:28:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/?p=8967"},"modified":"2026-06-09T09:29:19","modified_gmt":"2026-06-09T09:29:19","slug":"armys-failure-to-conduct-medical-board-cannot-deny-pension-rights-rajasthan-high-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/armys-failure-to-conduct-medical-board-cannot-deny-pension-rights-rajasthan-high-court\/","title":{"rendered":"Army’s Failure to Conduct Medical Board Cannot Deny Pension Rights: Rajasthan High Court"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Jaipur<\/strong>: The Rajasthan High Court, in a significant judgment concerning the rights of ex-servicemen, has directed the Central Government and military authorities to grant disability (invalid) pension to former Army soldier Om Prakash, bringing relief to a veteran who had been fighting for justice for nearly 31 years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Om Prakash, a resident of Fatehpur in Rajasthan’s Sikar district, was recruited into the Army Service Corps (ASC) in June 1984 and served for almost 11 years before being discharged from service on June 1, 1995.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Army had removed him under provisions of the Army Rules after classifying him as an \u201cundesirable soldier\u201d due to five Red Ink Entries recorded against him.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, Om Prakash argued that he had developed a serious neurological illness during his service and that the Army ignored his medical condition while discharging him, ultimately depriving him of the pension benefits he was legally entitled to receive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The high court found that Om Prakash had been hospitalized twice during his service. Medical records showed that he was treated at the Army Hospital in Delhi Cantonment and later at the Military Hospital in Jodhpur after being diagnosed with Radial Nerve Palsy (Right), a neurological disorder affecting the functioning of the arm.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Despite these documented medical issues, the Army neither assessed his disability nor convened a Release Medical Board before discharging him.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Division Bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal and Justice Ravi Chirania observed that the Army failed to explain why no Medical Board was conducted, even though the soldier had a clear history of illness and hospitalization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court also noted that the medical category column in his discharge documents had been left blank, which raised serious concerns about the manner in which his medical condition was handled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court held that since Om Prakash was medically fit when he joined the Army and developed the illness during service, the disease had to be presumed as attributable to or aggravated by military service.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It observed that the failure to conduct a Medical Board and properly record his medical condition amounted to a serious administrative lapse, and such negligence could not be used to deny him his statutory pension rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The High Court also disagreed with the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), which had rejected his claim in 2022 on the grounds of delay and insufficient service for regular pension.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court clarified that regular service pension and invalid pension are governed by different requirements. While regular pension generally requires 15 years of service, invalid pension requires only 10 years of qualifying service.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since Om Prakash had completed more than 10 years and 11 months of service, he fulfilled the eligibility criteria for invalid pension.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Addressing the Army\u2019s reliance on the Red Ink Entries, the court held that disciplinary entries alone cannot automatically justify denial of pensionary benefits. Referring to various Supreme Court judgments, it noted that such entries only permit authorities to consider discharge and do not mandate it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court further observed that four of the five Red Ink Entries were recorded during the same period when Om Prakash was suffering from the neurological illness, suggesting that his health condition may have affected his conduct and performance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The government had also argued that the claim should be rejected because the soldier approached the courts many years after his discharge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rejecting this contention, the High Court reiterated that pension is a continuing right and not a charity or ex gratia benefit. Therefore, a legitimate pension claim cannot be denied solely on the ground of delay.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since more than three decades had passed since the soldier\u2019s discharge, the court noted that conducting a fresh Medical Board at this stage would not be practical. Instead, it relied on the available medical records, hospital documents and service history to conclude that Om Prakash was entitled to disability or invalid pension.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court directed the authorities to grant him invalid pension and pay arrears from a period beginning three years prior to the filing of his petition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It further ordered that regular pension payments should continue from July 2026 onward. All pending dues up to June 2026 are to be cleared within three months, failing which the authorities will be liable to pay interest at the rate of six percent per annum on the delayed amount.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The judgment is being viewed as an important reaffirmation of the rights of ex-servicemen, emphasizing that procedural lapses by authorities cannot be used to deprive military personnel of benefits that they have lawfully earned during their service.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court, in a significant judgment concerning the rights of ex-servicemen, has directed the Central Government and military authorities to grant disability (invalid) pension to former Army soldier Om Prakash, bringing relief to a veteran who had been fighting for justice for nearly 31 years. Om Prakash, a resident of Fatehpur in … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":8968,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_wppp_is_locked":false,"_wppp_selected_plans":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[7,69,29],"tags":[894,904,899,886,891,248,755,909,897,882,885,893,908,561,269,895,892,911,888,883,48,898,887,902,884,910,903,890,896,901,43,150,228,900,907,906,912,889,905],"class_list":["post-8967","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court","category-top-stories","tag-armed-forces","tag-armed-forces-tribunal","tag-army-rules","tag-army-service-corps","tag-asc","tag-constitutional-rights","tag-court-order","tag-defence-personnel","tag-disability-benefits","tag-disability-pension","tag-ex-serviceman-pension","tag-ex-servicemen-welfare","tag-fatehpur-sikar","tag-high-court-judgment","tag-india-legal-news","tag-indian-army","tag-invalid-pension","tag-judicial-relief","tag-justice-ravi-chirania","tag-justice-sudesh-bansal","tag-legal-news","tag-military-law","tag-military-pension","tag-military-service","tag-om-prakash","tag-pension-arrears","tag-pension-case","tag-pension-dispute","tag-pension-rights","tag-radial-nerve-palsy","tag-rajasthan-high-court","tag-rajasthan-legal-news","tag-rajasthan-news","tag-red-ink-entries","tag-service-benefits","tag-sikar-rajasthan","tag-soldiers-rights","tag-veteran-rights","tag-veterans-welfare"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8967","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8967"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8967\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8969,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8967\/revisions\/8969"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/8968"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8967"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8967"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8967"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}