Union of India and Ors. Vs Ex Sgt Kishan Bahadur Singh 751051 R

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 24.03.2023 [‘impugned order’] passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi [‘Tribunal’] in Original Application [‘O.A.’] No. 883/2024 titled as Ex SGT Kishan Bahadur Singh (Retd.) v. Union of India & Ors., wherein the Respondent has been

¶17

W.P.(C) 3587/2026

¶18

Page 1 of 9

¶19

Signature Not Verified

¶20

Signed By:MOHIT Signing Date:27.0 3.2 026 19:09

¶21

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.

¶22

The facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the Respondent was discharged from the service on 28.01.2009 in permanent low medical category [‘LMC’] A4G3 (P) under the clause ‘at his own request’.

¶23

The Release Medical Board [‘RMB’] held on 27.01.2009 assessed the disability i.e., Primary Hypertension at 30% and compositely at 40% for 2 years and opined that since the onset of the disease was at the time when the Respondent was serving at the peace station i.e., in July 2008 in Mumbai/ 2226 San AF, and also that the Respondent has not worked in field area, active operational area, counter insurgency area and high altitude area, hence, the aforesaid disability is neither attributable to nor aggravated [‘NANA’] by the military service as per the Para 43 of Chapter VI of GMO 2008.

¶24

The Respondent’s claim of disability pension was rejected vide letter dated 17.12.2009 and the same was communicated to the Respondent vide letter dated 21.12.2009, as the disability was held to be NANA. The Respondent served appeal/Legal Notice dated 12.11.2018, which was rejected vide letter dated 26.12.2018 stating NANA.

¶25

Subsequently, Respondent filed an O.A. No. 180 of 2019 before the Tribunal, for the grant of disability element of pension.

¶26

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

¶27

1 2013 (7) SCC 361

¶28

W.P.(C) 3587/2026

¶29

Page 2 of 9

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Signed By:MOHIT Signing Date:27.0 3.2 026 19:09

¶32

and Union of India v. Ram Avtar² has granted the relief of disability pension to the Respondent.

¶33

The 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’].

¶34

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

¶35

8.2 He states in the facts of this case, Respondent was discharged from services on 28.01.2009 and therefore, the Respondent would be governed by Entitlement Rules, 2008.

¶36

8.3 He states that the impugned order incorrectly applies the presumption under the repealed Entitlement Rules, 1982, ignoring the amended regime under Entitlement Rules, 2008. He 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’.

¶37

In the facts of this case, since the Respondent took retirement from

¶38

2 2014 SCC OnLine SC 1761

¶39

W.P.(C) 3587/2026

¶40

Page 3 of 9

¶41

Signature Not Verified

¶42

Signed By:MOHIT Signing Date:27.0 3.2 026 19:09

¶43

service on 28.01.2009, the Respondent’s claim for disability pension would indeed be governed by the Entitlement Rules, 2008.

¶44

Having perused the reasons recorded in the RMB for opining 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.

¶45

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 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 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 judgments hold that 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

¶46

3 2025: DHC: 2021-DB

¶47

4 2025: DHC: 5082-DB

¶48

W.P.(C) 3587/2026

¶49

Page 4 of 9

¶50

Signature Not Verified

¶51

Signed By:MOHIT Signing Date:27.0 3.2 026 19:09

¶52

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.

¶53

On the issue of establishing causal connection of the disease with factors other than military service, we note that the Supreme Court in its recent 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 causal connection (as other than military service) is on the Military Establishment.

¶54

The character of reasons to be recorded by the Medical Board has been succinctly explained by the Supreme Court in another recent decision of Rajumon T.M. v. Union of India⁶ . The Supreme Court held that merely stating an opinion, such as ‘Constitutional Personality Disorder’ without giving reasons or causative factors to support such an opinion, is an unreasoned medical opinion and thus invalid. 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

¶55

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

¶56

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

¶57

W.P.(C) 3587/2026

¶58

Page 5 of 9

¶59

Signature Not Verified

¶60

Signed By:MOHIT Signing Date:27.0 3.2 026 19:09

¶61

be NANA.

¶62

In this background of settled law holding that the onus to prove disentitlement remains on military establishment vis-à-vis Entitlement Rules, 2008 and the Medical Board must give cogent reasons for denying attributability and aggravation, we have examined the facts of this case.

¶63

The Respondent was commissioned in the Indian Air Force [IAF] on 07.09.1993 and the disease/disability Primary Hypertension was discovered in the year 2008 [after 15 years of service], while he was serving at peace station and therefore, the disease has indisputably arisen during his military service. As noted above, the Respondent was discharged from service on 28.01.2009.

¶64

The Petitioners have raised the issue of non-entitlement of the disability element of the pension on the ground that the RMB has held that the disease is NANA by the military service. The opinion rendered by the RMB, for the purpose of the disability of Primary Hypertension, is extracted as under: -

¶65

OPINION OF THE MEDICAL BOARD

¶66

Casual Relationship of the Disability with Service conditions or otherwise.

¶67

Disability	Attributable to service	Aggravated by service	Not Connected	Reasons/causes/specific conditions and period
	(Y/N)	(Y/N)	with service (Y/N)	in service
(a) Primary Hypothyroidis m E 03.9 Z	NO	NO	YES	As the individual has not worked in hypothyroid endemic area he has not undergone any surgery

¶68

W.P.(C) 3587/2026

¶69

Page 6 of 9

¶70

Signature Not Verified

¶71

Signed By:MOHIT Signing Date:27.0 3.2 026 19:09

¶72

09.0			or irradiation to the glands also he was not on any drug therapy which leads to hypothyroidism hence it is not aggravated by service. (refer guide to Med officer (Mil Pension) 2002 Chapter -VI Para 38
(b) Primary Hypertension	10. 0 Z 09.0	NO	NO
Note. A disability ‘Not connec	ted with servic	e’ would be neith	er Attributable nor Aggravated by service(
This is in accordance with inst	ructions contai	ned in Guide to M	edical Officers (Mil pension)-2002)

¶73

[Emphasis Supplied]

¶74

The Petitioners contend that disease is NANA, since the onset of the disease was not in the field area and that there was no stress of the military service. In other words, the Petitioners contend that the onset was in peace area.

¶75

This reasoning in the medical opinion has been specifically rejected by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Col. Balbir Singh (Retd.) (supra)⁷ , while granting disability pension to the officer 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

¶76

7 At paragraph nos. 66 to 74

¶77

W.P.(C) 3587/2026

¶78

Page 7 of 9

¶79

Signature Not Verified

¶80

Signed By:MOHIT Signing Date:27.0 3.2 026 19:09

¶81

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 sufficient to deny disability pension to the officer. The ratio of the said judgment is squarely applicable in the facts of this case.

¶82

No other reason/ground has been recorded in the RMB report for opining NANA. In fact, the RMB herein categorically records in response to the question no. 2, that the Respondent did not have this disability before entering into service at internal page 7 of RMB⁸ and also to the response of question no. 5 (a) and (b), that the disability is not attributable or aggravated to the officer’s own negligence or misconduct.

¶83

In these facts, since no other causal connection for the disease has been found to exist by the RMB, the claim of disability pension has been wrongly rejected by the Military establishment, and the officer has been rightly held by the Tribunal to be entitled to disability pension. The Respondent is entitled to the disability pension as per Entitlement Rules 2008.

¶84

We also note that in exercise of the certiorari jurisdiction of this Court over the decision of the Tribunal, the limited parameters of the jurisdiction are delineated in the judgment of Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan⁹ . We have examined the impugned order within the said parameters and find no ground to interfere with the impugned order.

¶85

Additionally, we note that the impugned order is dated 24.03.2023 and the petition has been filed after nearly three years, without any

¶86

8 Page 92 of the paper book

¶87

9 (1963) SSC OnLine SC 24 at paragraph 7 and 8

¶88

W.P.(C) 3587/2026

¶89

Page 8 of 9

¶90

Signature Not Verified

¶91

Signed By:MOHIT Signing Date:27.0 3.2 026 19:09

¶92

explanation for such a delay. The Petitioner was obliged to comply with the impugned order of the Tribunal within three (3) months with effect from 24.03.2023; however, the same has not been complied with till date. Keeping in view that the claim of disability pension is beneficial in nature, the Petitioner ought to have taken steps to file its challenge within a time bound period, and certainly before the period of three (3) months had lapsed. There is no explanation whatsoever for the delay in approaching this Court and presumably the order of Tribunal have also not been complied with. We thus, hold that filing of this petition is also barred by delay and laches.

¶93

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 held to be entitled to the disability pension under the Entitlement Rules, 2008 by the Tribunal in the impugned order. The Petitioners are directed to comply with the order of the Tribunal without any further delay.

¶94

We therefore find no merit in this petition; the petition is dismissed. Pending application, if any, stands. No costs.

¶95

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J

¶96

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

¶97

MARCH 20, 2026/IB/ mt

¶98

W.P.(C) 3587/2026

¶99

Page 9 of 9

¶100

Signature Not Verified

¶101

Signed By:MOHIT Signing Date:27.0 3.2 026 19:09

Union of India and Ors. v. Ex Sgt Kishan Bahadur Singh 751051 R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India and Ors. v. Ex Sgt Kishan Bahadur Singh 751051 R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Staff Selection Commission and Anr. Vs Mandeep

Chandra Farms and Nursery Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi

G. S. Sodhi Vs NTPC Ltd. and Anr.

Suman Anand Vs Punjab National Bank (Obc)

Shilpy International Vs Commissioner of Vat & Anr.

Shrimati Tej Kaur Vs Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors.

Neelam Sahni Vs Lt. Governor (Administrator) and Ors.

Sai Eternal Foundation Vs National Highways Logistic Management Ltd. (Nhlml)

Chandra Farms and Nursery Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi

Rasi Nutri Foods India Private Limited Vs National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India & Ors.

Maj Rahul Singh through His Wife Prerna Verma Vs Union of India & Ors.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Ex Jwo Vinod Kumar Agnihotri (695516-R)

Devidayal and Mahindra Cable Industries & Ors. Vs Kdi Power Pvt. Ltd.

Ramavtar Vs Union of India & Anr.