The Exclusion of Disabled Officer Cadets: A Call for Justice

Atul Singh
Aug 31, 2025
5 min read

Updated: Jan 24

The plight of disabled Officer Cadets serves as a stark reminder of how policy and nomenclature can be used as instruments of exclusion.

Understanding the Ex-Gratia Policy

Vide MoD letter No. 1(5)/93/D (Pen-C) dated 16 Apr 1996, the Government introduced a policy regarding Officer Cadets who were boarded out from service, commonly referred to as the “Ex-Gratia” policy. Without delving into the controversy surrounding the discriminatory and self-serving term “ex gratia,” it is pertinent to mention that the same Order Memorandum (O.M.) stated:

“Other rules and procedures regarding assessment/re-assessment on disablement and acceptance of disability/death as attributable to or aggravated by conditions of military service/training in case of Cadets shall be the same as for regular commissioned officers of the Armed Forces. The procedure for sanction and conditions for grant of ex-gratia awards to the next of kin in case of deceased Cadets shall be the same as in case of casualties of regular commissioned officers due to attributable causes.”

In 2001, following the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ram Avtar, the Government, through an O.M. from the Ministry of Defence bearing No. 1(2)/1997/1/D(Pen-C), dated January 31, 2001, implemented a policy aimed at removing subjectivity in medical board assessments. This policy sought to ensure fair and uniform disability benefits through broad-banding and rounding-off. Under this policy, disability assessed up to 50% was treated as 50%, while disabilities ranging from 51% to 75% were treated as 75%, and those from 76% to 100% were treated as 100%.

This beneficial policy was extended to all disabled Officers, Junior Commissioned Officers (JCOs), and ranks of the Armed Forces.

Legal Challenges and Court Rulings

One of the boarded-out cadets subsequently filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, bearing W.P.(C) 6466/2014, titled Puneet Gupta v. Union of India & Ors., seeking the applicability of the broad-banding policy. In its decision, the Court held that the 2001 broad-banding policy would apply to Officer Cadets, allowing the writ petition. The judgment, delivered on 12.07.2016, stated:

“30…….The policy circular clearly states that it would be applicable with effect from January 01, 1996, i.e. has a retrospective operation. But this is irrelevant in the facts of the instant case because the petitioner was invalided as a trainee on March 18, 2008, and the benefit which the petitioner receives as a result of our opinion would be with effect from the date of the order of termination i.e. March 18, 2008.

31. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the respondents to pay the ex-gratia amount at the rate contemplated by the first limb of the policy circular dated April 16, 1996 as also an additional disability award on ex-gratia basis at the rate contemplated by the second limb of the same policy circular and while doing so to give effect to the Government of India memorandum dated January 31, 2001 i.e. notwithstanding the disability being assessed 20%, to grant the same by treating the disability at 50%.”

Following this, the Union of India filed a review petition, bearing Review Petition No. 266/2017. This review petition was dismissed on 18.05.2018, reaffirming the judgment dated 12.07.2016.

The judgment issued by the Writ Court was not contested by the Union and thus attained finality. Orders consistent with this judgment were also issued by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, in favor of the boarded-out Officer Cadets.

Recommendations and Policy Changes

In 2015, the Sabarwal Committee recommended that disability pensions and Ex-Servicemen (ESM) status be granted to cadets, emphasizing that the disability pension must adhere to applicable broad-banding. The Service Headquarters endorsed these recommendations, and the office of the Controller General of Defence Accounts (CGDA) explicitly recommended the applicability of broad-banding to Officer Cadets.

However, to further alleviate the plight of boarded-out cadets, the Ministry of Defence (DESW) introduced a new policy titled Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pension and Disability Compensation Awards to Armed Forces Personnel, 2023. In Rule 4(s), contrary to the judgments passed by the Supreme Court, the Delhi High Court, Punjab and Haryana High Court, and the Armed Forces Tribunal, a disabling clause was inserted:

“(c.) ……. However, the claims for ex gratia award shall be governed in accordance with these Rules.

(s.) Ex-Gratia Disability: ………………………The provisions of broad-banding shall not apply in calculating the percentage of impairment for the award of Ex-Gratia Disability Award.”

This entire exercise appears to be aimed at denying the broad-banding benefit to Officer Cadets. This policy supersedes earlier entitlement rules and must be interpreted in conjunction with the policy letters issued by the Ministry of Defence over time.

The Inhuman Treatment of Disabled Officer Cadets

Such actions reflect the inhuman, discompassionate, and arbitrary attitude of the Ministry of Defence towards disabled Officer Cadets. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in a series of petitions from similarly situated individuals, issued a judgment in W.P.(C) 7898/2018 and connected petitions on 16.04.2024, reaffirming the judgment in Puneet Gupta (supra) and held that broad-banding provisions would apply to boarded-out Officer Cadets.

The judgment from the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in this batch of petitions, dated 16.04.2025, has now been challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The challenge asserts that the implementation of the judgment in Puneet Gupta (supra) by the Government was under special circumstances specifically sanctioned without establishing a precedent.

The judgment in Puneet Gupta (supra) highlights the casual manner in which issues of attributability and quantum are determined. In this case, the stance was inconsistent and self-contradictory. These may have been the special circumstances that the Ministry of Defence attempted to conceal rather than contest before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

The Need for Systematic Change

Repeatedly, different courts have raised concerns regarding how Armed Forces personnel are compelled to engage in protracted litigations. This necessity led to the establishment of the Expert Committee, which aimed to reduce litigation.

However, Officer Cadets continue to be excluded from being considered part of the Armed Forces due to restrictive interpretations of their nomenclature and policy wording.

The Ministry of Defence (DESW), in a letter dated 23.12.2023, bearing No. 27(2)/2017/D(Pen/Policy), claimed that the letter was issued to ‘bring uniformity between both civil and military.’ However, it unequivocally refuses to acknowledge the same principle of parity when awarding disability pensions to disabled cadets.

ECHS and broad banding are consequential benefits of being an ESM — ECHS is an entitlement and consequential benefit of ESM Status, just like Broad Banding of Disability

This approach represents a convenient exercise of first denying rightful entitlements and then showcasing generosity through a one-time “special dispensation” under a “special circumstance.” The intent has consistently been to avoid recognizing “disability pension.” This is crucial because, once acknowledged, the disabled Officer Cadets would fall under the ESM category and would automatically be entitled to the Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS), which has now been granted as a “special dispensation.”

Labeling rightful entitlements as mere ‘ex gratia’ or ‘special dispensation’ is an attempt to obscure discriminatory policies and the Government’s exclusionary attitude. Disabled Officer Cadets, duly enrolled under the Armed Forces Acts and subject to Army Regulations, should be treated as service personnel rather than outsiders. This position has been heartlessly maintained by the Government for decades, solely to deny them their legitimate entitlements under the guise of technicality. The struggle of disabled Officer Cadets is not for charity or benevolence; it is a fight for dignity, equality, and recognition as members of the Armed Forces.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the ongoing struggle of disabled Officer Cadets highlights the urgent need for reform in policies affecting their rights and entitlements. The legal battles they face are emblematic of a broader issue within the system that requires immediate attention. It is imperative that we advocate for justice and equality for all members of the Armed Forces, ensuring that their sacrifices are duly recognized and compensated.

Judgment in Puneet Gupta v. Union of India & Ors.: