Acclimatization In High-Altitude Area Like Leh Is Part Of Soldier's Duty, Injury During It Attributable To Service: MP High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, while upholding the order of the Armed Forces Tribunal granting disability pension to a soldier, observed that he was on acclimatization in a high-altitude area, which is a part of his duty, and any injury sustained during his period would also be attributable to his service. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 342]Dismissing the Union Government's appeal, the division bench...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, while upholding the order of the Armed Forces Tribunal granting disability pension to a soldier, observed that he was on acclimatization in a high-altitude area, which is a part of his duty, and any injury sustained during his period would also be attributable to his service. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 342]
Dismissing the Union Government's appeal, the division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Anand Pathak observed:
"Respondents were unable to prove otherwise to show that disability might be due to any other reason including any previous episodes prior to fall from the double bunker bed. He was on acclimatization, which is part of duty of a soldier posted on high altitude area. Therefore, it is not a case, where respondent move on his own whims. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that the injury was caused due to an act other than the duty".
A writ petition was filed by the Union Government challenging the order of September 26, 2024, passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal. The Tribunal had allowed the respondent's application and found him entitled to disability pension at 20% (rounded off to 50%) for life.
Per the facts, the respondent was enrolled in the Indian Army on March 10, 2002, as per the terms of engagement. The respondent was entitled to service for 22 years, but he was discharged from service on October 31, 2019, after completing 17 years and 4 months. He was discharged because he was found in the Permanent Low Medical Category.
The respondent, while he was deployed in a high-altitude area in Leh, had fallen down from double bunker bed on March 11, 2018, sustaining severe injuries to his back. Due to the injury sustained, the respondent was admitted to the Hospital and later transferred to another hospital on April 3, 2018. The respondent was thereafter discharged on April 26, 2018, with 4 weeks of sick leave.
After the expiry of the sick leave, the authorities of Command Hospital had medically downgraded the respondent for a period of six months, with effect from May 29, 2018, to November 12, 2018. On review, the respondent was placed in a permanent low medical category for a period of two years with effect from 06.12.2018.
The respondent was further willing to continue his service under the Low Medical Category but was not granted a Sheltered Appointment by the Commanding Officer. The respondent was subjected to a Release Medical Board by the Command Hospital on August 5, 2019, which had released the respondent in P/3 Permanent category, assessed at 20% and held as non-attributable to nor aggravated by military service. Thus, the respondent was discharged.
He had filed an application before AFT, which passed the impugned order granting relief to the respondent.
The counsel for the Union argued that the Tribunal erred in passing the impugned order in recording that the respondent was in service when he sustained injuries. It was further submitted that the Tribunal ignored the fact that the respondent did not report the falling incident and directly consulted the Medical Investigation room and took medicines.
The court noted that this was a case where the respondent was claiming disability pension because he sustained injuries while performing military service. The respondent was discharged in 2019 under the Entitlement Regulations, 2008, and the Pension Regulations for the Army, Part 1, 2008.
Further, the court noted that the respondent had sustained injuries due to a sudden fall from a double-bunk bed while undergoing acclimatization at the unit LOC in the high-altitude location of Leh. The court noted that the said fact was mentioned in the medical reports and also in the proceedings.
The court further noted that the respondent was unable to prove that disability might be due to any other reason, including any previous episodes prior to the fall from the double bunker bed.
Thus, the bench held that the Tribunal rightly considered the factual situation and passed the impugned order. The petitioner was dismissed.
Case Title: Union of India v Ram Prasad Rathore, WP-21295-2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 342
For Petitioners: Advocate Piyush Bhatnagar