Varicose Veins & Chronic Venous Insufficiency Disability Pension in Armed Forces 2026

1. What are Varicose Veins and Chronic Venous Insufficiency?

Varicose veins are enlarged, elongated and tortuous superficial veins, most commonly affecting the lower limbs. Chronic Venous Insufficiency (CVI) is a broader condition in which venous return from the legs is impaired because of valvular incompetence, venous outflow obstruction or failure of the calf-muscle pump. In military personnel, symptoms may become functionally important because service involves prolonged standing, drill, running, route marches, load carriage, guard duties, vehicle movement and deployment in difficult terrain.

2. The Critical Rule Change: GMO 2008 vs GMO 2023

The Ministry of Defence promulgated the Entitlement Rules 2023 and Guide to Medical Officers 2023 on 21 September 2023. For claims governed by the new framework, older judgments cannot simply be copied without examining the changed medical-entitlement criteria.

3. Leading Armed Forces Authority: Cdr Nitin Gopal Pednekar

In Cdr Nitin Gopal Pednekar (Retd.) v. Union of India, OA No. 50/2023, decided on 17 October 2024 by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench Mumbai, the applicant suffered from multiple disabilities including Chronic Venous Insufficiency. The Release Medical Board had assessed CVI at 20% for life and treated it as aggravated by military service.

The Tribunal specifically examined paragraph 63(f) of GMO 2008. It noted that the medical guidance recognised prolonged standing, injury and infection as factors capable of worsening CVI. The Tribunal ultimately granted disability pension for CVI at 20%, with the benefit of rounding/broad-banding to 50%, together with restricted arrears. The judgment is important because the medical board itself had recorded service aggravation; the dispute was not merely based on a claimant’s assertion.

Read the AFT Mumbai judgment — Cdr Nitin Gopal Pednekar

4. A Recent 2025 Example: Training and Marching as Aggravating Factors

In Pramod Kumar v. Union of India, decided by the Delhi High Court on 4 December 2025, a BSF Constable was found permanently disabled on account of Bipolar Affective Disorder and right-leg Varicose Veins. The Review Medical Board expressly recorded that the varicose veins were aggravated by training and marching. The Court held that, once the competent RMB had confirmed service aggravation and the overall disability exceeded the applicable threshold, there was no basis to deny disability pension.

This case arose from the BSF and was decided under the CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules rather than the Armed Forces pension regulations. It is therefore not a direct substitute for Army/Navy/Air Force entitlement rules. It is nevertheless a useful contemporary illustration of why the actual medical-board finding on aggravation matters.

Read Pramod Kumar v. Union of India

5. Does Prolonged Standing Automatically Make Varicose Veins Service-Connected?

No. That proposition is too broad. Prolonged standing may be medically relevant, particularly under the older GMO 2008 aggravation framework, but entitlement still requires a defensible nexus between the service profile and the disability. The legal analysis should ask:

• Was the condition primary varicose veins, CVI, post-thrombotic CVI, or another vascular disorder?
• Was there a prior episode of DVT? If yes, was that DVT itself service-attributable?
• Did the vascular surgeon, specialist or Medical Board connect deterioration to prolonged standing, marching, injury, immobilisation, HAA exposure or another qualifying circumstance?
• Was the person fit at entry, and how many years of unrestricted service preceded the diagnosis?
• Did Doppler/duplex studies show reflux, venous obstruction, perforator incompetence or post-thrombotic changes?
• Was surgery required? Did the condition recur?
• Which entitlement rules governed the relevant Medical Board?

6. DVT Changes the Legal Analysis

Under GMO 2023, Deep Vein Thrombosis has a more detailed service-nexus framework. Acquired DVT following service-related surgery, trauma or prolonged immobilisation may be attributable. The Guide also recognises specific circumstances relating to continuous flight duration and high-altitude exposure. If a service-attributable DVT later causes post-thrombotic CVI or secondary varicose veins, the secondary venous disease may stand on a materially different footing from ordinary primary varicose veins.

7. Training, Marching and Standing: What Evidence Actually Helps?

A credible claim is built from the service record, not from generic descriptions of military life. Useful material may include:

8. Surgery Does Not Automatically End the Pension Question

Military personnel may undergo saphenofemoral ligation, stripping, radiofrequency ablation, endovenous laser treatment or other vascular procedures. The fact of surgery does not answer three separate questions:

1. Entitlement: Was the condition attributable to or aggravated by service under the applicable rules?
2. Assessment: What functional impairment remained after treatment?
3. Duration: Was the disability temporary, permanent, for life, or subject to reassessment?

Recurrence, persistent venous reflux, chronic swelling or skin changes may materially affect assessment. Conversely, a successful operation with minimal residual impairment may reduce the percentage. The percentage cannot safely be inferred from diagnosis alone.

9. Percentage Assessment and the 20% Issue

Varicose-vein and CVI cases often become disputes not only about service nexus but also about percentage assessment. Older cases show assessments ranging from below 20% to 20%, 30% or composite percentages depending on severity and associated disabilities. A claimant should obtain the complete medical-board proceedings and determine:

• the percentage assigned to each disability;
• whether the percentage is temporary or lifelong;
• whether the condition is accepted as attributable/aggravated;
• whether the board has applied a composite assessment;
• whether any later authority reduced or altered the board’s percentage;
• whether broad-banding is separately available.

10. Broad-Banding: 20% May Become 50% in Covered Cases

Where the claimant otherwise qualifies and the applicable pension policy permits rounding/broad-banding, an assessed disability of up to 50% may be rounded to 50%; disability above 50% and up to 75% may be rounded to 75%; and disability above 75% may be rounded to 100%, subject to the governing policy and the claimant’s category of release/retention.

The Supreme Court’s 2026 judgment in Union of India v. Sgt Girish Kumar is particularly important for the law on broad-banding and arrears in covered Armed Forces cases. For a detailed explanation, see our guide to broad-banding and disability-pension arrears.

11. Primary Varicose Veins Under GMO 2023: A Difficult but Precise Question

This is exactly why the date of the Medical Board, diagnosis terminology and Doppler findings should be checked before drafting a First Appeal, Second Appeal or AFT Original Application.

12. When Can a NANA Finding Be Challenged?

A NANA (“Neither Attributable Nor Aggravated”) opinion may be vulnerable where it:

• uses only a label such as “constitutional” without explaining the individual medical facts;
• ignores an earlier specialist or board opinion accepting aggravation;
• fails to distinguish primary varicose veins from post-thrombotic CVI;
• ignores documented DVT, trauma, prolonged immobilisation or qualifying HAA/flight exposure;
• relies only on the fact that onset occurred at a peace station;
• fails to apply the correct GMO/Entitlement Rules for the date of the case;
• does not reconcile long fit service with a later permanent vascular disability where the applicable legacy rules make that history relevant.

For the broader legal principles governing NANA findings, see our detailed guide: Attributable or Aggravated by Military Service? NANA Medical Board & AFT Challenge.

13. Reassessment and Worsening CVI

CVI may progress. A veteran who develops recurrent venous ulceration, worsening oedema, post-thrombotic changes, recurrent DVT or materially increased functional impairment should distinguish between two questions: entitlement and percentage. A reassessment mechanism generally addresses the degree of impairment; it does not automatically reopen entitlement where that question has already been finally determined.

For procedure, see our Disability Pension Reassessment guide.

14. Documents to Collect Before Filing an Appeal or AFT Case

15. Typical AFT Grounds in a Varicose Veins / CVI Matter

Depending on the record, an Original Application before the Armed Forces Tribunal may raise grounds such as:

1. failure to apply the correct Entitlement Rules/GMO;
2. failure to distinguish primary disease from secondary post-thrombotic disease;
3. arbitrary departure from a reasoned RMB finding of aggravation;
4. failure to consider documented service factors or DVT circumstances;
5. unsupported reduction of disability percentage;
6. failure to grant broad-banding despite an otherwise qualifying disability;
7. failure to give reasons in the First or Second Appeal;
8. incorrect restriction of arrears where the governing precedent provides otherwise.

16. Important Difference: Recruitment Medical Fitness vs Disability Pension

Cases about a candidate being rejected from Army/CAPF recruitment because of varicose veins are not the same as disability-pension cases. Recruitment standards ask whether the candidate is medically fit to enter service. Disability-pension law asks whether a disease suffered during or after service is attributable to or aggravated by service and what impairment remains. A recruitment-unfitness judgment should therefore not be cited as though it answers pension entitlement.

17. Related Fastrack Legal Solutions Resources

• Disability Pension for Armed Forces: Main 2026 Guide
• NANA Medical Board Opinion: Attributability, Aggravation & AFT Challenge
• Disability Pension Reassessment & Percentage Disputes
• Broad-Banding & Disability Pension Arrears

Frequently Asked Questions

Updated: August 2026. Authorities and entitlement rules should always be checked against the date of the relevant Medical Board and the service-specific pension regulations.