Denial of Disability Pension and Ex-Servicemen Status to Medically Boarded Out Disabled Cadets: A Constitutional and Legal Analysis
- Atul Singh
- Aug 27
- 17 min read
Updated: Aug 29
-by Atul Singh, Advocate
Officer Cadets, on entry into the training academy, like the Indian Military Academy (IMA), Officers Training Academy (OTA), Air Force Academy (AFA) etc., formally get inducted into the service of the Armed Forces. They are enrolled under the Army Act, 1950, the Air Force Act, 1950, or the Navy Act, 1957, and are allotted a unique service/academy number, which remains their identification number until they are commissioned. The dossier prepared at this stage continues throughout their service till they retire. So from the first day at the Academy till their last day in service, they are subjected to the rigours of military law. For the duration of their training, they are not only bound by the Academy regulations and rules but are also bound by the Army Rules, 1954, including restrictions upon their fundamental rights under Article 19 of the Constitution, by virtue of Article 33 of the Constitution of India, as applicable to the members of the Armed Forces.
Despite this legal position, a glaring anomaly exists, as when any Officer Cadet gets medically boarded out during training on account of disabilities attributable to or aggravated by military service, he/she is denied disability pension and Ex-Servicemen (ESM) status. Instead, he/she is only paid a meagre ex gratia amount, which strips him/her of access to the Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS), CSD Canteen facilities, resettlement benefits, and dignified recognition as Ex-Servicemen.
Shockingly, this anomaly has persisted despite the statutory recognition of cadets as enrolled persons under the Service Acts; they are paid the basic pay as officers, receive the same status as officers, and are boarded out under the same rules as is applicable to the officers of the three services.
The report and recommendation by the expert committee, also known as the Raksha Mantri’s Committee of Experts, 2015; the recommendations of the Air HQ; the Army HQ and the Navy HQ gather dust at a dark corner of the MoD, had urged the government to weed out this discriminatory practice and to include the Officers Cadets, within the ESM and grant them disability pension. To make things easier for the bureaucracy to implement the said recommendations, the Indian Army’s legal branch, i.e. JAG Branch had even suggested as to how this can be implemented by minor changes in the Pension Regulations. However, no action has been taken since then, for reasons best known.
The issue here is not merely administrative. It raises profound questions of constitutional equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and the Government’s obligation towards those who have been formally inducted into military service and disabled in the line of service.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court had taken judicial notice of the plight of the disabled cadets. That during the course of hearing, in Re: Cadets Disabled In Military Training Struggle, when the notice was issued to the concerned departments of the Union of India, the core issue of the ESM status of the Officer Cadets, was sidelined by the Government by merely stating that since they are not in service, therefore they cannot be given ESM Status or disability pension.
This is nothing more than an inane bureaucratic approach to have selective reading and narrow interpretation of the policy and wordings to deny the Officer Cadets their rightful dues, and yet project that the government is gracious enough to think about ways to make it better for the said medically boarded out cadets.
The Sabarwal committee, in its 2015 report, categorically stated on the said issue:
“ These are issues which have not only resulted in litigation but their non-resolution displays utter insensitivity and obstinacy of the establishment and goes to show how graciousness and large-heartedness is lacking in all of us.”
Before we dwell further on what the committee recommended, it is imperative to note the statutory status of Officer Cadets, which the Government, conveniently, chooses to avoid.
Army Act, 1950
The Army Act, 1950 unequivocally subjects Officer Cadets to the Army Act.
Section 2(1)(b) provides:
2. Persons subject to this Act. - (1) The following persons shall be subject to this Act wherever they may be, namely-(b) persons enrolled under this Act; …”
Air Force Act, 1950
Similarly the Air Force Act, 1950, Section 2(b), reads as under:
“2. Persons subject to this Act. - The following persons shall be subject to this Act, namely—
(b) persons enrolled under this Act; …”
Navy Act, 1957
The Navy Act goes a step further, and not only does it mention that the persons enrolled under the said act are subject to the Act, but it categorically includes the ‘cadets’ under the definition of ‘subordinate officer’.
Section 2(1)(iii) of the Navy Act, 1957 provides:
“2. Persons subject to this Act. - The following persons shall be subject to this Act, namely-
(iii) every person belonging to the Indian Navy during the time that he is liable for active service.”
Section 3(23) defines “subordinate officer” as follows:
“3(23). ‘subordinate officer’ means a cadet, midshipman, or any person appointed as an acting sub-lieutenant.”
Therefore, not only express inclusion, but they are recognised as subordinate officers subject to the Act, and even otherwise, the Government, through their own policy documents, categorically admits that an Officer Cadet is a “person enrolled under this Act” from the date of reporting to the Training Academy.
Army Rules, 1954
Another aspect that needs consideration is the restrictions that are placed on the Officer Cadet’s fundamental rights upon enrollment.
Under the Army Rules, 1954, the Officer Cadets are immediately stripped of certain fundamental rights enjoyed by other citizens. The said Army Rules, 1954, framed under the Army Act, state as under:
19. Unauthorised organisation. No person subject to the Act shall, without the express sanction of the Central Government –
(i) take official cognizance of, or assist or take any active part in, any society, institution or organisation, not recognised as part of the Armed Forces of the Union; unless it be of a recreational or religious nature in which case prior sanction of the superior officer shall be obtained;
(ii) be a member of, or be associated in any way with, any trade union or labour union, or any class of trade or labour unions.
The fundamental right to form associations or unions enjoyed by every citizen under Art. 19(1)(c) of the Constitution is abrogated in its application to members of the regular Army under this rule.
Similarly, under Rules 20 and 21 of the Army Rules, 1954, the fundamental rights of freedom of speech and expression and assembly, which are enjoyed by every citizen under Article 19(1)(a) and (b), are abrogated in their application to members of the regular Army, which includes the Officer Cadets. The aforesaid rights have been so abrogated because of the nature of duties performed by the members of the regular Army and for the maintenance of discipline among them.
20. Political and non-military activities.
(1) No person subject to the Act shall attend, address, or take part in any meeting or demonstration held for a party or any political purposes, or belong to or join or subscribe in the aid of, any political association or movement.
(2) No person subject to the Act shall issue an address to electors or in any other manner publicly announce himself or allow himself to be publicly announced as a candidate or as a prospective candidate for election to Parliament, the legislature of a State or a local authority, or any public body or act as a member of a candidate’s election committee, or in any way actively promote or prosecute a candidate’s interests.
21. Communications to the Press, Lectures, etc. No person subject to the Act shall
(i) publish in any form whatever or communicate directly or indirectly to the Press any matter in relation to a political question or on a service subject or containing any service information, or publish or cause to be published any book or letter or article or other document on such question or matter or containing such information without the prior sanction of the Central Government, or any officer specified by the Central Government in this behalf; or
(ii) deliver a lecture or wireless address, on a matter relating to a political question or on a service subject or containing any information or views on any service subject without the prior sanction of the Central Government or any officer specified by the Central Government in this behalf.
Explanation. For the purpose of this rule, the expression “service information” and “service subject” include information or subject, as the case may be, concerning the forces, the defence or the external relation of the Union.”
These restrictions under the Army Rules apply to the Officer Cadets as much as any other person serving in the armed forces, as they operate under the mandate of Article 33 of the Constitution of India.
Article 33 of the Constitution of India:
“33. Power of Parliament to modify the rights conferred by this Part in their application to Forces, etc.-
Parliament may, by law, determine to what extent any of the rights conferred by this Part shall, in their application to-
(a) the members of the Armed Forces; or(b) the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order; or(c) persons employed in any bureau or other organisation established by the State for purposes of intelligence or counter-intelligence; or(d) persons employed in, or in connection with, the telecommunication systems set up for the purposes of any Force, bureau or organisation referred to in clauses (a) to (c), be restricted or abrogated so as to ensure the proper discharge of their duties and the maintenance of discipline among them.”
The aforementioned statutory provisions, Army Rules, and the Constitutional extract make it abundantly clear that the Cadets are members of the Armed Forces. It is a travesty of justice and constitutionally impermissible for the Government to abrogate their rights of the Officer Cadets under Article 33 while simultaneously denying them the protections of disability pension and Ex-Servicemen status, while an identically placed recruit, Junior Commissioned officer and officers and ranks of the CAPF and Central government are entitled to disability pension and attached benefits. This self-created artificial distinction is directly hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Be that as it may, for the sake of argument, even if it is accepted that the Officer Cadets are not in service, for the duration of their training, the Government is well within its power to consider the duration of training as deemed service, in case of medical invalidment.
Section 9 of the Army Act, provides:
“9. Power to declare persons to be on active service.
Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (i) of section 3, the Central Government may, by notification, declare that any person or class of persons subject to this Act shall, with reference to any area in which they may be serving or with reference to any provision of this Act or of any other law for the time being in force, be deemed to be on active service within the meaning of this Act."
This enabling provision permits the Central Government to declare cadets on active service, confirming their formal status, if at all the intention is to enable and not disable those who are already dealing with some form of medical and physical disability.
Stipend Vs Pay
In order to deny disability pension and ESM Status to the medically boarded out Officer Cadets, another argument that is often put forth is the artificial and self-serving classification of their emoluments as “stipend” rather than “pay.” This distinction, however, is wholly unsustainable for the following reasons:
Officer Cadets receive a fixed stipend during training, which is nothing but the entry-level pay of the Officer, without any allowances. Upon completion of training, i.e. Commissioning, the stipend paid to the Officer Cadet is reclassified as Pay for all purposes and is paid entitled allowance for the duration of the training. The said stipend is not drawn from any civilian budget head but from the Major Head 2076 – Defence Services – Army, Minor Head 101 – Pay and Allowances of Officers, reflecting its true nature as pay.
Thus, a stipend is nothing more than the entry-level basic pay of an Officer, differing only in nomenclature. The so-called stipend is also subject to the Income Tax Act, which, in an ordinary course, would be exempted, if at all, the same was not considered as pay for all purposes.
In a similar manner, the Recruit joining the training for being attested as a Non-Commissioned Officer or as a Junior Commissioned Officer is also in receipt of a stipend, which is also the basic pay for the rank in which he is inducted. Surprisingly, the said logic and argument of Stipend versus Pay does not apply, when it comes to granting disability pension and ESM states to medically boarded out Recruits.
Further, the argument that service commences only from the date of grant of Commission by the President of India loses all significance when viewed in the light of a boarded-out Junior Commissioned Officer, who, in identical circumstances, is extended the benefit of disability pension.
Legal Position in Pension Regulations for Recruits:
The Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008, provide for disability pension to be admissible to recruits who are under training:
Regulation 96:
“RECRUITS AND BOYS
96. Recruits and Boys shall be eligible for disability pension at the rates and under the
conditions applicable to a Sepoy of the lowest group..”
Therefore, if even a recruit is entitled to disability pension in identical circumstances, it is wholly irrational and a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, if the same benefits are denied to Officer Cadets.
The persistent reliance on selective terminology to deny disability pension only exposes the administrative machinery’s unwillingness to resolve the issue in a liberal, welfare-oriented, and compassionate manner, as mandated by constitutional principles.
Violation of Articles 14 and 21
It is a settled law that every piece of legislation must have universal application, and it does not take away from the State the power to classify persons for the purposes of legislation, but the classification must be rational, and in order to satisfy this test that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes those that are grouped together from others. The argument of Recruit Versus Officer Cadets does not pass the said test of intelligible differentia as there is no reasonable basis to distinguish between Officer Cadets and recruits, considering both are trainees, both are enrolled, both are in receipt of a stipend which is later reclassified as pay, and both may be invalided during training. Similarly, in the case of JCO and Officer Cadets, apart from the aforementioned similarities, both get commissioned upon completion of their training.
For the sake of argument, even if it is believed that the Pension Regulations are not applicable to Officer Cadets, or even if there is a difference that exists in the nature of service or training, there has to be a rational nexus to the object of the pension regulations, which is to provide social security for disabilities attributable to service.
Numerous judicial precedents stress the fact that a pension is a measure of socio-economic justice and cannot be arbitrarily withheld
Withholding the disability pension of the cadets and, in turn, granting them an ex gratia award as a favour is also a violation of Article 21, as the denial of disability pension violates the right to life and dignity under Article 21. The pensionary benefits are an extension of the right to livelihood and dignity. Officer Cadets medically disabled in the line of duty are left destitute without any meaningful support.
Comparative Discrimination of Disabled Cadets
Recruits | Commissioned Officers | Civil Services & CAPF Trainees |
They are covered by Regulation 181, Pension Regulations 2008.
Entitled to disability pension and ESM Status | They are covered under Regulations 82–93, Pension Regulations 2008. Entitled to disability pension and ESM Status | Their service is counted from day one of training for pensionary benefits.
|
So, it is clear that the cadets are only excluded, without any reasonable justification.
It is being highlighted that boarded-out officer cadets receive Rs. 40,000/-. Only those with 100% disability are entitled to the said amount, as for the majority of Officer Cadets, the ex-gratia is not even half of what is being claimed. In some cases, this amount is even less than the disability pension of a recruit in the army.
Policy Recommendations:
As stated above anomaly has been acknowledged by multiple expert bodies. Their recommendations are reproduced verbatim below.
Raksha Mantri’s Committee of Experts (2015)
The Committee observed:
“Cadets who are disabled with an attributable/aggravated disability and boarded out of training academies are granted a disability pension which is surprisingly not called ‘pension’ but termed as a monthly “ex-gratia” award. This inane nomenclature has been conceptualized so that such cadets could be prohibited from falling within the category of “ex-servicemen” (since all disability pensioners are termed as ex-servicemen as per DoPT rules) and are unable to avail all such facilities that are available to pensioners. It is yet another matter of concern that this above pension (called ex-gratia) to Cadets, who are trainees for Group-A Gazetted level Commissioned Officer appointments are granted this pension (monthly ex-gratia) which is lower than even a Recruit training to be a Group-C level Sepoy. Moreover, Recruits disabled during training are granted “exserviceman” status while Cadets training to become officers are not, which is clearly discriminatory. All trainees of the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) of all levels, including officers, are also authorized proper disability pension if disabled during training..”
“The artificial distinction put forth that such Cadets are not under the Service Acts unlike Recruits is an absurd proposition since it is just a self-invented way to refuse benefits since no external agency has cited this reason and it just a creation of fertile minds to deny benefits.”
The Committee thus recommended:
“The Committee is of the view that Officer Cadets undergoing training, when boarded out on medical grounds attributable to or aggravated by military service, should be granted disability pension at the rates applicable to officers (without Military Service Pay), instead of the ex gratia currently admissible. Further, broad-banding should be applied to such disability assessments, in line with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The nomenclature of ‘ex gratia’ should be dispensed with, and the benefit classified as ‘disability pension.’”
Integrated HQ Of MoD(Army) (Ag/Ps5)
“5. It is a fact that while on invalidment from training on ground of disability attributable/aggravated due to Military Training, a recruit is entitled for Disability pension while a Cadet is getting only ex-gratia award. Because, a recruit is in receipt of Disability Pension, he then gets an Ex-Servicemen status but 3 Cadet since he is in receipt of, ex-gratia award only, he is not an, ex-servicemen which deprives a Cadet of many benefits available to an Ex-Servicemen viz ECHS facility, Canteen facility & many more. Further. the ex-gratia award given to a cadet is the minimum pension
while a recruit gets 50% of RE as service element + disability element at prescribed rate
6. This difference is caused due to the fact that a Recruit is enrolled into Army the moment he joins training and starts getting full pay also, while a Cadet is granted stipend during training and is commissioned only after successful completion of training.
7 In view of the above this office is in agreement with the recommendation of RM Committee of Experts that Cadets may be released proper disability pension at officer rates and nomenclature of their pension by changed to disability pension rather than ex-gratia.”
Judge Advocate General’s Department (2016):
Based on the above recommendation, the JAG Branch formally recommended a via media to implement the said recommendation by minor amendment to the pension regulations:
“The proposed ‘Sub-Section-II A’ will deal with grant of disability pension to the Cadets undergoing pre-commissioning training. It would contain provisions which may provide that a Cadet undergoing pre- commissioning trg at the Training Institutes/ Academies, when medically boarded out. before completion of pre-commissioned trg, due to a disability/disabilities which is attributable to/ aggravated by mii trg, such Cadet would be entitled for the grant of ‘disability pension’ at a rate, corresponding to the rate which would have been admissible had the disability/ disabilities leading to his medically boarding out, were sustained by him in the first month of his commissioned service”
The JAG branch also held that above above-suggested course of action will have the following advantages:
a. No requirement of amending the Army, Navy and Air Force Act.
b. No requirement of grant of any provisional commission to cadets
c. Officer Cadets will continue to get the existing stipend and no requirement of undertaking the exercise of fixation of seniority, etc, which would be required if the training period were converted to commissioned service.
However, the said recommendations have been deferred in perpetuity. The approach of the Ministry of Defence towards disabled Officer Cadets is not only deplorable but reflects a systemic insensitivity to their plight. Such a stance virtually converts disabled cadets into deterrent examples, discouraging aspirants from taking up service in the Armed Forces. It must be reiterated that the welfare of soldiers is not a matter of charity or largesse; it is a solemn constitutional duty of the Government.
Ministry of Law & Justice – Department of Legal Affairs O/o Legal Adviser (Defence): 2022
“2. The matter has been referred to this office for our opinion w.r.t. grant of disability pension to cadets medically boarded out from training on account of disability attributable to/aggravated by Military Training.
3. In this regard, the Deptt has taken the opinion of all the JAGs of the Three Services and they have concurred with the proposal (para 6 of note 22/ante refers).
4. It is pertinent to mention that granting of disability pension to Cadets can only be done after amendment in the concerned Pension Regulations of the Three Services i.e. Pension Regulation for the Army (PRA), 1961 revised as PRA-2008; Pension Regulation for the Air Force, 1961 and Navy (Pension) Regulation, 1964 by including "Definition of Cadets" in all the Three Services. Further, once all the Pension Regulations are revised, a suitable amendment may be incorporated accordingly in the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards to Armed Forces, personnel, 2008', to include officer cadets also in the said Rule.
5. However, granting of disability pension to cadets medically boarded out for training on account of disability attributable to or aggravated by Military Training is a policy decision and the Competent Authority may take a conscious administrative decision in the matter in consultation with MoD (Pension) and MoD (Finance). Thereafter, the Deptt of Ex-servicmen may be consulted with respect to granting of ex-servicemen status to these officer cadets who are medically boarded out.”
These unanimous recommendations have been circulating in official files for nearly a decade. Each time a judicial pronouncement is delivered, the issue is momentarily resurrected, only to be relegated once again without any concrete policy action. The entire exercise has been reduced to a perfunctory cycle of inviting opinions and suggesting changes, after which the matter is conveniently shrugged under the carpet. Even today, in the suo-moto proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Government starts with their submissions with the Officers Cadets are not entitled to Disability Pensions and Ex-Servicemen status, with an easy escape of avoiding a logical explanation to WHY? It would not be surprising, every attempt will be made to avoid explanation of non implementation of the expert recommendations for the past 10 years.
Issue of Disability Pension and Broad-banding:
1. The very denial of broad-banding to all medically boarded-out cadets is arbitrary and discriminatory. Cadets are formally enrolled under the Army Act and cannot be placed on a lower footing than recruits. Therefore, the broad-banding must be applied to their disability assessments, and they should be given their due entitlements, without being compelled to face a long-drawn legal battle.
2. Pension rules and regulations, being rules for ensuring social welfare, must be interpreted liberally, keeping in mind the beneficial object. Disability pension cannot be denied to those who are formally enrolled and invalided due to service conditions.
Beyond Combat: Harnessing Skills of Disabled Officer Cadets- exception should become a norm:
The modernisation of the Armed Forces has broadened the spectrum of roles beyond conventional combat duties, encompassing specialised positions in intelligence, cyber operations, technical services, administration, and foreign language interpretation. This evolution creates a pathway for medically boarded-out Officer Cadets to continue serving the nation, despite physical disabilities.
There are notable precedents demonstrating the success of such rehabilitation. For instance, Flight Cadet (now Squadron Leader) Rajkumar Herojit Singh, who was injured and paralysed during training in 2011, was commissioned into the Indian Air Force in 2013 in the Accounts Branch. This compassionate induction not only enabled him to continue his service with dedication but also provided him a life of dignity and equal opportunities, which in turn enabled him to represent India at international para-athletic championships. Without a compassionate mindset, he might have faced the same hardships endured by other disabled cadets, as highlighted in media reports.
Similarly, Flight Cadet (now Flt. Lt. Yogesh Yadav), injured and paralysed during training in 2018, was commissioned into the Indian Air Force in 2021. These cases show that with thoughtful policy and administrative flexibility, disabled cadets can be integrated into non-combat roles where their skills and discipline continue to benefit the Armed Forces.
Excluding the majority of disabled cadets while granting inclusion to a select few raises serious concerns under Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. The Armed Forces have a long tradition of valuing capability over infirmity; even the Indian Army has been led by a Chief of Army Staff with permanent disability and several senior officers who continued to render exemplary service despite their disability. Only a hyper-technical or rigid approach to policies and rules would obstruct similar equitable rehabilitation for medically boarded-out cadets.
Expected reforms:
The denial of disability pension and Ex-Servicemen status to cadets is unconstitutional, contrary to statutory logic, and inconsistent with military justice. Reforms must include:
a) Amendment of Pension Regulations, 2008 to insert explicit provisions for Officer Cadets.
b) Grant of disability pension at officer rates (without MSP).
c) Conferment of Ex-Servicemen status on medically boarded-out cadets so as to extend them the benefits of ECHS and rehabilitation schemes of DESW and DGR
d) Extension of broad-banding to all Officer Cadets.
e) Rehabilitation and resettlement schemes, including non-combat commissions where possible, or their lateral placement in the Ministry of Defence, DRDO, IDAS, IDES, MES or other Central Government employment, subject to them meeting the eligibility criteria.
f) Tie-ups with government-owned and aided educational institutions for transition courses for their absorption in the corporate sector.
Such measures would be an act of equity and would uphold the dignity of those who entered military service but were disabled before commissioning. The intent should be inclusion and not exclusion, to enable and not disable those who already are.
Well written covered all the points and reality in one article