Broad-Banding for Cadets: Law Settled, Government in Denial
- Atul Singh
- Aug 31
- 5 min read
-By Atul Singh, Advocate
The plight of disabled Officer Cadets is a stark reminder of how policy and nomenclature can be used as instruments of exclusion.
Vide MoD letter No. 1(5)/93/D (Pen-C) dated 16 Apr 1996, the Government came up with a policy in respect of the Officer Cadets boarded out from service, commonly known as the “Ex-Gratia” policy. Without getting into the controversy of why this discriminatory and self-serving term “ex gratia” was coined, it is pertinent to mention that the same very O.M. mentioned that:
“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 the year 2001, after the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ram Avtar, through an O.M. of the Government of India, Ministry of Defence bearing No. 1(2)/1997/1/D(Pen-C), dated January 31, 2001, the Government brought a policy to remove subjectivity in medical boards’ assessments and to ensure fair, uniform disability benefits, by way of broad-banding and rounding-off, whereby disability assessed up to 50% was to be treated as 50%. Likewise, disability increased from 51% to 75% as 75% and 76% to 100% as 100%.
This being a beneficial policy, it was extended to all disabled Officers, JCOs and ranks of the Armed Forces.
One of the boarded-out cadets thereafter 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 applicability of the broad-banding policy. While deciding the issue, the Court held that the 2001 policy of broad-banding would apply to Officer Cadets and allowed the writ petition, vide judgment dated 12.07.2016, holding:
“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%.”
Thereafter, the Union of India filed a review, bearing Review Petition No. 266/2017. The said review petition was dismissed vide order dated 18.05.2018, reaffirming the judgment dated 12.07.2016.
The said judgment passed by a Writ Court was not challenged by the Union and had attained finality. Orders on the same lines, and taking reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, were also passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, in favour of the boarded-out Officer Cadets.
In the year 2015, the Sabarwal Committee, while recommending disability pension and ESM status to cadets, also stressed that the disability pension has to be with applicable broad-banding. The Service Headquarters endorsed the said recommendations and, in fact, the office of the CGDA categorically recommended the applicability of broad-banding to Officer Cadets.
Only to further alleviate the plight of boarded-out cadets, contrary to the said recommendations, the Ministry of Defence (DESW) came up with a new policy Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pension and Disability Compensation Awards to Armed Forces Personnel, 2023, wherein 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, inserted a disabling clause:
“(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 is being done to deny the broad-banding benefit to the Officer Cadets. This policy comes into effect by superseding the earlier entitlement rules and is to be read in conjunction with the policy letters issued by the MoD from time to time.
Such is the inhuman, discompassionate and arbitrary attitude of the MoD towards disabled Officer Cadets. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in a batch of petitions by similarly placed individuals, passed a judgment in W.P.(C) 7898/2018 and connected petitions, vide judgment dated 16.04.2024, reaffirming the judgment passed in Puneet Gupta (supra) and held that broad-banding provisions will apply to boarded-out Officer Cadets.
The judgment passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the said batch of Petitions, dated 16.04.2025, has now been challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, stating that the implementation of the judgment in Puneet Gupta (Supra) by the Government was under special circumstances specifically sanctioned without setting a precedent.
The judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court in Puneet Gupta (supra) highlights the casual manner in which the issues of attributability and quantum are decided. In the said case, admittedly, the stance was flickering and self-contradictory. These were probably the special circumstances that the MoD tried to keep under wraps rather than challenging before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Time and again, different courts have flagged concerns as to how Armed Forces personnel are made to fight litigations for years. Precisely for this reason, the Expert Committee came into existence to reduce litigation.
However, for Officer Cadets, they are still not considered to be part of the Armed Forces, due to restrictive interpretations of their nomenclature and policy wording.
The MoD (DESW), while issuing a Letter dated 23.12.2023, bearing No. 27(2)/2017/D(Pen/Policy), while relying on CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939, claimed that the said letter has been issued to ‘bring uniformity between both civil and military’. However, it point-blank refuses to acknowledge the same principle of parity when it comes to awarding disability pension to disabled cadets.
It is a convenient exercise of first denying rightful entitlements and then showcasing generosity by a one-time “special dispensation” under a “special circumstance”. The attempt has always been to avoid recognising “disability pension”, because as soon as the same is allowed, the disabled Officer Cadets will fall under the category of ESM and will be automatically entitled to ECHS, which has now been granted as a “special dispensation”.
Labelling rightful entitlements as mere ‘ex gratia’ or ‘special dispensation’ is nothing but an attempt to camouflage discriminatory policies and the Government’s exclusionary attitude. Disabled Officer Cadets, having been duly enrolled under the Armed Forces Acts, being subjects of the Army Regulations, are to be treated as service personnel, not as outsiders, a position that the Government has heartlessly advanced for decades, solely to deny them their legitimate entitlements under the garb 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.
Judgment in Puneet Gupta v. Union of India & Ors.:
Judgment passed in Review filed in Puneet Gupta v. Union of India & Ors.:
Judgment in Ex-LC Shreya Manhas Vs Union of India & Ors . and other Connected petitions:
Comments