Valsala, a 65-year-old woman from Varkala, doesn’t know much about schizophrenia. All she knows is that she waited for over 3 decades and waged tiring legal battles to receive her late husband’s disability pension after he was discharged from the Army. 

Sreekandan Nair, who had joined the Indian Army in 1973, was discharged from service in 1979 after he was diagnosed with schizophrenia. Even after his initial application for disability pension was rejected, Sreekandan Nair appealed to the Defence Ministry. That appeal, too, was dismissed. 

According to Valsala, Sreekandan Nair’s doctor believed his illness was most likely triggered by the stress and strain he experienced during military service. This opinion was later echoed by the Armed Forces Tribunal and now upheld by the Kerala High Court. 

She said Sreekandan struggled for years to secure the pension. Despite the setback, he continued taking up odd jobs to support his wife and two children. “He worked as a manual labourer and was occasionally employed in shops. That’s how we lived,” Valsala recalled.

Following his death in 1991, Valsala was left to raise the family on her own. “We never received any support from the government. I looked after my children by tending to cows,” she said. “It was because of the support from my parents and siblings that I was able to raise my children and educate them,” she added.

The High Court, in its order, cited Regulation 423(c) of the Regulations for Medical Services for Armed Forces, 1983, which provides that a disease leading to an individual’s discharge or death is ordinarily deemed to have arisen during service if no note of the disease was made at the time of the individual’s enrolment in the armed forces. The regulation, however, also states that if medical opinion, supported by recorded reasons, concludes that the disease could not have been detected during the medical examination conducted before enrolment, it shall not be deemed to have arisen during service.

According to Advocate V K Sathyananthan, who represented Valsala, a serviceman becomes eligible for disability pension if the disability is either attributable to military service or aggravated by it.

“This means the disability should either have been caused by the service or made worse because of it. In this case, it was claimed that the disease was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service,” he told Onmanorama.

“However, as per entitlement rules, it is presumed that if a person is fit upon entry, but suffers from a disease at the time of retirement, that the disease is attributed to the service,” he added.

The Union of India argued that the Release Medical Board had concluded that the disease was constitutional in origin, implying that it was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. It also challenged the Armed Forces Tribunal’s order, contending that the tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction by drawing “its own conclusions over and above the report of the Release Medical Board.”

The High Court, however, held that the medical board’s conclusion that the disease was constitutional in origin was “devoid of reasons” and therefore could not be sustained in law.

The court also referred to a Supreme Court judgment, observing that where there is a denial of a fundamental right, a jurisdictional error, or an error apparent on the face of the record, the High Court is empowered to exercise its jurisdiction under the Constitution.

While ruling in Valsala’s favour, the court further observed that social security legislations must be interpreted liberally and beneficially. It held that such laws should be given the widest possible meaning the language permits and that, where a statutory provision is capable of two interpretations—one preserving the benefit and the other denying it—the interpretation that preserves the benefit should prevail.