Union of India and Ors. Vs Gp Capt Rajesh Kumar Singh Jadon (Retd)

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 05.01.2024 [‘impugned order’] passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi [‘Tribunal’] in Original Application [‘O.A.’] No. 2276 of 2022 titled as GP Capt Rajesh Kumar Singh Jadon (Retd.) v. Union of India & Ors., wherein the Respondent has been granted the benefit of the disability element of pension for Primary Hypertension (Old) Z09 assessed at 30%, rounded off to 50% for life, from the date of his retirement from the service.

¶12

The facts giving rise to the present petition are that the Respondent who was enrolled in the Indian Air Force [‘IAF’] on 12.09.1988, was

¶13

Signature Not Verified Signed By:MOHIT Signing Date:27.0 3.2 026 19:20

¶14

W.P. (C) 3690/2026 Page 1 of 8

¶15

discharged from service on 31.07.2021 in LMC¹ A4G3 (P).

¶16

The Release Medical Board [‘RMB’] held on 12.02.2021 assessed the disabilities i.e., (i) Primary Hypertension (Old) Z09 at 30% for life and (ii) Type II DM (Old) Z09 at 20% for life, compositely assessed at 40% for life.

¶17

RMB opined that since the diseases were caused due to lifestyle disorder and the onset of the diseases were at a time when the Respondent was serving at the peace station, i.e., in Kanpur, the aforesaid disabilities are neither attributable to nor aggravated [‘NANA’] by the military service, as per the Para 43 of GMO 2008 for the disease of Primary Hypertension, and as per Para 26 of GMO 2008 for the disease of Type II DM (Old) Z09.

¶18

The Respondent’s claim of disability pension was rejected by the Petitioner vide letter dated 21.07.2022, as the disability was held to be NANA.

¶19

The Respondent filed an O.A. No. 2276 of 2022 before the Tribunal for the grant of disability element of pension. Pertinently, in the proceedings before the Tribunal, the Respondent claimed for disability element of pension qua one ailment, i.e., Primary Hypertension (Old) Z09 and gave up his claim for the other ailment Type II DM (Old) Z09.

¶20

By the impugned order, the Tribunal after referring to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India and Ors .² and Union of India v. Ram Avtar³ allowed the O.A. and granted the relief of disability pension to the Respondent.

¶21

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.

¶22

1 Low medical category

¶23

2 2013 (7) SCC 361

¶24

3 2014 SCC OnLine SC 1761

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

Signed By:MOHIT Signing Date:27.0 3.2 026 19:20

¶27

W.P. (C) 3690/2026 Page 2 of 8

¶28

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’].

¶29

7.1. She 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. She states in the facts of this case, Respondent was discharged from services in the year 2021 and therefore, the Respondent would be governed by Entitlement Rules, 2008. She states that the impugned order incorrectly applies the presumption under the repealed Entitlement Rules, 1982, ignoring the amended regime under Entitlement Rules, 2008. 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

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Since the Respondent was discharged from service on 31.07.2021, his claim would be governed with the Entitlement Rules 2008. 9. 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

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Signed By:MOHIT Signing Date:27.0 3.2 026 19:20

¶33

W.P. (C) 3690/2026 Page 3 of 8

¶34

of India v. Ex. Sub Gawas Anil Madso⁴ and W.P.(C) 140/2024 titled Union of India vs. Col. Balbir Singh (Retd. ) and other connected matters⁵ , 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 said judgments hold that a bald statement in the report of the Medical Board opining ‘onset in peace station’ or ‘lifestyle disorder’ would not be sufficient for the military department to deny the claim of disability pension; and rejected the opinions of the Medical Board. The said 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.

¶35

On the issue of establishing causal connection of the disease with factors other than military service, we also note that the Supreme Court in

¶36

4 2025: DHC: 2021-DB

¶37

5 2025: DHC: 5082-DB

¶38

Signature Not Verified

¶39

Signed By:MOHIT Signing Date:27.0 3.2 026 19:20

¶40

W.P. (C) 3690/2026 Page 4 of 8

¶41

its recent judgment in the case of Bijender Singh vs. Union of India⁶ 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.

¶42

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 India⁷ . 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 be NANA.

¶43

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

¶44

The Respondent was enrolled in the IAF on 12.09.1988 and the disease Primary Hypertension (Old) Z09 was discovered in the year 2001 [after 13 years of service], while he was serving and therefore, the disease has indisputably arisen during his military service.

¶45

The Petitioners have raised the issue of non-entitlement of the disability element of the pension, on the ground that RMB has held that the

¶46

6 2025 SCC OnLine SC 895 at paragraphs 45.1, 46 and 47

¶47

7 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1064 at paragraphs 25, 26, 32 and 36

¶48

Signature Not Verified

¶49

Signed By:MOHIT Signing Date:27.0 3.2 026 19:20

¶50

W.P. (C) 3690/2026 Page 5 of 8

¶51

disease is NANA by the military service. The opinion rendered by the RMB is extracted as under: -

¶52

The RMB has classified the disease as NANA, on the ground that it is a lifestyle-related disorder, its onset occurred in a peace area, and it was not attributable to any stress or exigency of military service.

¶53

These very reasons have been specifically rejected by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Col. Balbir Singh (Retd.) (supra)⁸ in the context of Entitlement Rules, 2008 while similarly granting disability pension to the officer suffering therein from Primary Hypertension. The said reasons have been held to be invalid grounds for denying attributability to the military service.

¶54

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 sufficient to deny disability pension to the officer.

¶55

The ground ‘onset in peace station’ is thus, an invalid ground and

¶56

8 At paragraph nos. 66 to 74

¶57

Signature Not Verified

¶58

Signed By:MOHIT Signing Date:27.0 3.2 026 19:20

¶59

W.P. (C) 3690/2026 Page 6 of 8

¶60

cannot be relied upon by the petitioner to justify NANA.

¶61

The Division Bench in Col. Balbir Singh (Retd.) (supra)⁹ also held that a mere statement by the RMB that a disease is a ‘lifestyle disorder’ cannot be a sufficient reason to deny the grant of disability pension and accordingly, rejected the stand of the authorities opining NANA.

¶62

We note that no causative factors have been enlisted in the report dated 12.02.2021 by the RMB for concluding that the disease is a ‘lifestyle disorder’. In fact, the RMB herein categorically records in response to the question no. 2 (a) and (b) at internal page 8, that the disability is not attributable or aggravated to the officer’s own negligence or misconduct. Thus, conclusion in the RMB that the disease is a ‘lifestyle disorder’ is therefore contradictory and bereft of reasons, required from the Medical Board.

¶63

No other ground has been cited in the RMB report of the Respondent for opining NANA.

¶64

In these facts, since no other causal connection has been found to exist by the RMB, for the disease, we agree with the Tribunal that the claim of disability pension has been wrongly rejected by the Military establishment, and the officer has been rightly held entitled to disability pension as it is attributable to/or aggravated by the military services.

¶65

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.

¶66

9 At paragraph no. 71

¶67

Signature Not Verified

¶68

Signed By:MOHIT Signing Date:27.0 3.2 026 19:20

¶69

W.P. (C) 3690/2026 Page 7 of 8

¶70

Additionally, we note that the impugned order is dated 05.01.2024 and the petition has been filed after more than 2 years, without any explanation for such a delay. The Petitioner was obliged to comply with the impugned order of the Tribunal within four [4] months and it appears from the record that the Petitioner has not complied with the said order. The Petitioners ought to have approached this Court immediately and cannot elect to sleep over compliance of the impugned order of the Tribunal. Such conduct of the Petitioners show abject disregard for the legal process. We hold that filing of this petition is also grossly barred by delay and laches, and ought to be dismissed on this ground alone. Nevertheless, we have decided the petition on merits to avoid any further delay by the Petitioners in complying with the impugned order.

¶71

We therefore find no merit in this petition; the petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶72

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J

¶73

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

¶74

MARCH 23, 2026/AJ

¶75

Signature Not Verified

¶76

Signed By:MOHIT Signing Date:27.0 3.2 026 19:20

¶77

W.P. (C) 3690/2026 Page 8 of 8

Union of India and Ors. v. Gp Capt Rajesh Kumar Singh Jadon (Retd)

Case brief

What is this about?

Union of India and Ors. v. Gp Capt Rajesh Kumar Singh Jadon (Retd)

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

Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. Vs Bijender Singh and Ors.

Bses Yamuna Power Ltd. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Rimpy Vs the Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Rajesh Kumar Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Parveen Kohli @ Raju Kohli Vs Lieutenant Governor of Delhi

Queen Marys School & Anr. Vs Ashish Samuel & Anr.

Mahesh C Vs Union of India & Ors.

Damodar Valley Corporation Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ms Sapna James Vs Union of India & Ors.

Union of India and Ors. Vs 626838 Hfo Kamal Deo Mishra (Retd.)

M/S Krk Enterprise Vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr.

Surender Nagar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Yokesvaran K Vs Union of India

M/S Kewal Canteen Vs Union of India & Ors.