Union of India & Ors. Vs Hav. Jawan Singh (Retd.) (No. 01586159L)

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 30.05.2024 [‘impugned order’] passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi [‘Tribunal’] in Original Application [‘O.A.’] No. 1701/2023 titled as HAV Jawan Singh (Retd.) v. Union of India & Ors., wherein the Respondent has been granted the benefit of the disability element of pension for Primary Hypertension assessed at 30% for life, rounded off to 50% for life, from the date of his discharge from the service.

¶13

The facts giving rise to the present petition are that the Respondent was discharged from the service on 31.12.2019 on completion of terms of

¶14

Signature Not Verified

¶15

Signed By:MAHIMA SHARMA Signing Da te:2 5.02.2026 11:36

¶16

W.P.(C) 2459/2026 Page 1 of 8

¶17

engagement, after rendering 26 years and 4 days of qualifying service.

¶18

The Release Medical Board [‘RMB’] held on 12.09.2019 assessed the disability i.e., Primary Hypertension at 30% for life. The RMB opined that since the onset of the disease was at the time when the Respondent was serving at the peace station i.e., in October 2018 at Delhi (Peace station), the aforesaid disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated [‘NANA’] by the military service.

¶19

The Respondent’s claim of disability pension was rejected by the Petitioners on 08.01.2020 relying upon the aforesaid finding on the RMB. 5. In these facts, the Respondent filed O.A. No. 1701 of 2023 before the Tribunal for the grant of disability element of pension. By the impugned order, the Tribunal after referring to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India and Ors .¹ and Union of India v. Ram Avtar² granted the relief of disability pension to the Respondent. 6. The only submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioners is that the reliance placed by the Tribunal on the judgment of Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India and Ors . (supra) is totally misplaced as in the said case the Supreme Court was concerned with the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 [‘Entitlement Rules, 1982’], whereas the case of the Respondent needs to be considered under the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards to Armed Forces Personnel, 2008 [‘Entitlement Rules, 2008’].

¶20

6.1. She contends that the Tribunal has overlooked the Entitlement Rules, 2008, which govern attributability and aggravation and no longer permit a

¶21

1 2013 (7) SCC 361

¶22

2 2014 SCC OnLine SC 1761

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

Signed By:MAHIMA SHARMA Signing Da te:2 5.02.2026 11:36

¶25

W.P.(C) 2459/2026 Page 2 of 8

¶26

blanket presumption in favour of the claimant/officer; and since the RMB has opined the disease to be NANA, the Tribunal could not have presumed a causal connection between the disease and the service.

¶27

6.2. She states in the facts of this case, Respondent was discharged from services on 31.12.2019 and therefore, the Respondent would be governed by Entitlement Rules, 2008.

¶28

6.3. She states that the impugned order incorrectly applies the presumption available under the repealed Entitlement Rules, 1982, ignoring the amended regime under Entitlement Rules, 2008, which does not raise this presumption in favour of the personnel.

¶29

6.4. She states that the Entitlement Rules, 2008, have done away with the general presumption to be drawn to ascertain the principle of ‘attributable to or aggravated by military service’.

¶30

Having perused the reasons recorded in the opinion of the RMB for holding NANA, we are unable to agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the Tribunal committed any error in granting relief to this Respondent. 8. In view of the fact that the Respondent was discharged from service on 31.12.2019, indeed the plea of disability pension would be governed by Entitlement Rules, 2008.

¶31

In another petition, i.e., W.P.(C) 88/2026 titled Union of India v. 781466 Ex. SGT Krishna Kumar Dwivedi , decided by this Bench on 06.01.2026, our attention was drawn to the authoritative judgments of the coordinate Benches of this Court passed in W.P.(C) 3545/2025 titled Union

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

Signed By:MAHIMA SHARMA Signing Da te:2 5.02.2026 11:36

¶34

W.P.(C) 2459/2026 Page 3 of 8

¶35

of India v. Ex. Sub Gawas Anil Madso³ and W.P.(C) 140/2024 titled Union of India vs. Col. Balbir Singh (Retd. ) and other connected matters⁴ , which have conclusively held that even under Entitlement Rules, 2008 an officer, who suffers from a disease at the time of his release and applies for disability pension within 15 years from release of service, is ordinarily entitled to disability pension and he does not have any onus to prove the said entitlement. The said judgments emphatically hold that even under the Entitlement Rules, 2008, the onus to prove a causal connection between the disability and military service is not on the officer but on the administration. The Entitlement Rules, 2008, however, contemplate that in the event the Medical Board concludes that the disease, though contracted during the tenure of military service, was NANA by military service, it would have to give cogent reasons and identify the cause, other than military service, to which the ailment or disability can be attributed. The judgments hold that a bald statement in the report of the Medical Board opining ‘ONSET IN PEACE STATION’ would not be sufficient for the military department to deny the claim of disability pension; and rejected the opinions of the Medical Board. The judgments hold that the burden to prove the disentitlement of pension therefore remains on the military department even under the Entitlement Rules, 2008; and emphasise on the significance of the Medical Board giving specific reasons to justify their opinion for denial of this beneficial provision to the officer.

¶36

For reference, we also note that the Supreme Court in its recent

¶37

3 2025: DHC: 2021-DB

¶38

4 2025: DHC: 5082-DB

¶39

Signature Not Verified

¶40

Signed By:MAHIMA SHARMA Signing Da te:2 5.02.2026 11:36

¶41

W.P.(C) 2459/2026 Page 4 of 8

¶42

judgment in the case of Bijender Singh vs. Union of India⁵ has reiterated that it is incumbent upon the Medical Board to furnish reasons for opining that a disease is NANA and the burden to prove the same is on the Military Establishment.

¶43

The distinction between conclusion and reasons has been succinctly explained by the Supreme Court in another recent decision of Rajumon T.M. v. Union of India⁶ to state that merely stating an opinion/conclusion, such as ‘CONSTITUTIONAL PERSONALITY DISORDER’ in the RMB without giving reasons or causative factors to support such an opinion, is an unreasoned medical opinion. The Supreme Court explained that the said opinion of the Medical Board was merely a conclusion and would not qualify as a reasoned opinion for holding the disease/disability to be NANA. 11. In this background of settled law holding that the onus to prove disentitlement remains heavy on military establishment vis-à-vis Entitlement Rules, 2008 also, we have examined the facts of this case and the RMB.

¶44

The Respondent was enrolled in the Indian Air Force on 28.12.1993 and the disease/disability Primary Hypertension (Old) was discovered in the year 2018 [after 25 years of service], while he was serving and therefore, the disease has indisputably arisen during his military service. The Respondent was discharged from service on 31.12.2019 on completion of terms of engagement.

¶45

The Petitioners have raised the issue of non-entitlement of the disability element of the pension only on the ground that the Medical Board has held that the disease is NANA by the military service. The opinion

¶46

5 2025 SCC OnLine SC 895 at paragraphs 45.1, 46 and 47

¶47

6 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1064 at paragraphs 25, 26, 32 and 36

¶48

Signature Not Verified

¶49

Signed By:MAHIMA SHARMA Signing Da te:2 5.02.2026 11:36

¶50

W.P.(C) 2459/2026 Page 5 of 8

¶51

rendered by the RMB is extracted as under: -

¶52

OPINION OF THE MEDICAL BOARD

¶53

Disability	Attributable to service (Y/N)	Aggravated by service (Y/N)	Detailed Justification
Primary Hypertension	NO	NO	Onset of ID was in 29 Sep 2018 while serving in Delhi (Peace).There is no close time association with Fd/HAA CI on tenure.No aggravating factors related to service were noted in this ibid case. Here ID conceded as neither attributable nor aggravated by mil services as per Para 43 Chapter VI of GMO’s Mil Pension 2008 amendment.

¶54

Note -1. A detailed justification regarding the board’s rec on the entitlement for each diseases/dis must provided sequential especially in NANA cases as per enclosed Appendix ‘A’.

¶55

In case of multiple dis of inadequate space, do not paste over the opinion, an additional sheet should be attached instead, providing a detailed justification, which is authenticated by the President and all members the med bd.

¶56

In case the medical board differs in opinion from the previous medical board, a detailed justification explaining the reasons to differ should be brought out clearly.

¶57

A dis cannot simultaneously be both attributable to or aggravated by military service, only one or neither of which will apply.

¶58

(Emphasis supplied)

¶59

The Petitioners contend that disease is NANA since the RMB records onset of the disease was at a peace station and that there was no stress of the military service.

¶60

This precise reason of ‘onset in peace station’ has been specifically rejected by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Col. Balbir Singh (Retd.)

¶61

Signature Not Verified Signed By:MAHIMA SHARMA Signing Da te:2 5.02.2026 11:36

¶62

W.P.(C) 2459/2026 Page 6 of 8

¶63

(supra)⁷ while granting disability pension to the officer therein suffering from Primary Hypertension, and has been held to be an invalid ground for denying attributability to the military service. The Division Bench in the said decision after taking note of Regulation 423(a) of the Regulations for the Medical Services of the Armed Forces, 2010 held that, the fact that, the disability occurred in normal peace conditions is immaterial and by itself is not a sufficient ground to deny disability pension to the officer.

¶64

The Medical Board is obliged to record cogent reasons and the causative factors which in their opinion led to the personnel suffering from the said disease. If the Medical Board fails to identify the causal connection, the presumption is that the disease was suffered by the personnel due to the stress and strain of the military service. The bald statement in the subject RMB that ‘no aggravating factors related to service were noted in this ibid case’ is not a sufficient ground for opining NANA.

¶65

No other ground has been cited in the RMB report of the Respondent. 17. In fact, the subject RMB categorically records in response to the question no. 2 (a) and (b) that the disability is not attributable to the officer’s own negligence or misconduct recorded at internal page 8 of the RMB⁸ . In these facts, since no other causal connection for the disease has been found to exist by the RMB, the plea of disability pension has been wrongly rejected by the Military establishment.

¶66

In view of the aforesaid findings, the Petitioners’ challenge to the grant of disability element of pension to the Respondent, is without any merits. The Respondent has been rightly h eld to be entitled to the disability

¶67