Full Judgment Text
$~38
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision :07.01.2026
+ W.P.(C) 130/2026, CM APPL. 647/2026 & CM APPL. 648/2026
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Major Anish Muralidhar (Army)
versus
1481129 P EX HAV RAM KUMAR .....Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J. ( ORAL )
CM APPL. 648/2026
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 130/2026 and CM APPL. 647/2026
3. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India lays a
challenge to the order dated 12.07.2023 (‘impugned order’) passed by the
Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (‘Tribunal’, for short)
in O.A. 1040/2019 titled Ex. HAV Ram Kumar v. Union of India and
Others, wherein the respondent has been granted the benefit of the disability
element of pension at 30% for Primary Hypertension, rounded off to 50%
for life.
4. The facts to be noted are the respondent was enrolled into the Indian
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MOHIT
Signing
Date:13.01.2026 12:05
W.P.(C) 130/2026 Page 1 of 9
1
Army on 06.02.1987 and was discharged from the services on 31.03.2008
under Rule 13(3) item III(v) of the Army Rules, 1954 before completion of
terms of engagement within low Medical Category ‘S1H1A1P2E1’ due to
diagnosis of Primary Hypertension. The Release Medical Board (‘RMB’, for
short) proceedings were held on 30.01.2008, wherein the Medical Board
opined that the respondent has disability of Primary Hypertension at 30% for
life and further assessed that the aforesaid disability was neither attributable
nor aggravated by military service. It was further opined in the relevant
column Part V for recording the cause that the said disease was of an
unknown aetiology .
5. The respondent’s claim for disability pension was rejected by the
petitioner on the basis of the said report and therefore, the respondent
approached the Tribunal by way of filing O.A. 1040/2019 praying for grant
of disability element of pension. The respondent claimed before the Tribunal
for the grant of disability element of the pension from the date of release
(i.e., 01.04.2009) on the ground that the respondent had developed the
disease of Primary Hypertension during the course of his service and in that
sense, the disease is attributable to the military service.
6. By impugned order dated 12.07.2023, the Tribunal allowed the
respondent’s claim and held that the respondent is entitled to disability
element of pension in respect of disability Primary Hypertension at 30%
rounded off to 50% for life. The Tribunal referred to the judgments of the
2
Supreme Court in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India and Ors . , and
other judgments for granting the relief as claimed by the respondent herein.
1
In the petition, it is stated that respondent was commissioned in the Army on 06.02.1979; however in the
OA before the Tribunal, the date recorded is 06.02.1987.
2
2013 (7) SCC 361
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MOHIT
Signing
Date:13.01.2026 12:05
W.P.(C) 130/2026 Page 2 of 9
7. The only submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner 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 (‘1982 Entitlement Rules’, for short),
whereas the case of the respondent needs to be considered under the
Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards to Armed Forces
Personnel, 2008 (‘2008 Entitlement Rules’, for short).
The petitioner contends that the Tribunal has overlooked 2008
Entitlement Rules, which govern attributability/aggravation, and no longer
permit a blanket presumption in favour of the claimant. He states in the
facts of this case, Respondent was discharged on 31.03.2008 and therefore,
the respondent would be governed by 2008 Entitlement Rules. He states that
the impugned order incorrectly applies the presumption under the repealed
1982 Entitlement Rules, ignoring the amended regime under 2008
Entitlement Rules. He states that 2008 Entitlement Rules have done away
with the general presumption to be drawn in order to ascertain the principle
of ‘ attributable to or aggravated by military service ’.
8. Having perused the opinion of the RMB, we are unable to agree with
the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
Tribunal committed any error in granting relief to this respondent.
9. In 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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MOHIT
Signing
Date:13.01.2026 12:05
W.P.(C) 130/2026 Page 3 of 9
3
Ex. Sub Gawas Anil Madso and W.P.(C) 140/2024 titled Union of India
4
vs. Col. Balbir Singh (Retd.) and other connected matters , which have
conclusively held that even under 2008 Entitlement Rules, 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 2008 Entitlement Rules, however, contemplate that in the
event the Medical Board concludes that the disease though contracted during
the tenure of military service, was not attributable to or aggravated 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 would not
be sufficient, for the military department for denying the claim of disability
pension. The burden to prove the disentitlement therefore remains on the
military department even under 2008 Entitlement Rules and the aforesaid
judgments emphasize on the significance of the Medical Board giving
specific reasons for denial of this beneficial provision. The judgments hold
that the onus to prove a casual connection between the disability and
military service is not on the officer but on the administration.
10. We for benefit also note that the Supreme Court in its recent opinion
5
in the case of Bijender Singh vs. Union of India and Others , wherein at
paragraphs 45.1, 46 and 47, the Supreme Court held as under:
“ 45.1. Thus, this Court held that essence of the Rules is that a member
of the armed forces is presumed to be in sound physical and mental
condition at the time of his entry into the service if there is no note or
3
2025: DHC: 2021-DB
4
2025: DHC: 5082-DB
5
2025 SCC OnLine SC 895
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MOHIT
Signing
Date:13.01.2026 12:05
W.P.(C) 130/2026 Page 4 of 9
record to the contrary made at the time of such entry. In the event of
subsequent discharge from service on medical ground, any
deterioration in health would be presumed to be due to military service.
The burden would be on the employer to rebut the presumption that the
disability suffered by the member was neither attributable to nor
aggravated by military service. If the Medical Board is of the opinion
that the disease suffered by the member could not have been detected at
the time of entry into service, the Medical Board has to give reasons for
saying so. This Court highlighted that the provision for payment of
disability pension is a beneficial one which ought to be interpreted
liberally. A soldier cannot be asked to prove that the disease was
contracted by him on account of military service or was aggravated by
the same. The very fact that upon proper physical and other tests, the
member was found fit to serve in the army would give rise to a
presumption that he was disease free at the time of his entry into
service. For the employer to say that such a disease was neither
attributable to nor aggravated by military service, the least that is
required to be done is to furnish reasons for taking such a view.
46. Referring back to the impugned order dated 26.02.2016, we find
that the Tribunal simply went by the remarks of the Invaliding Medical
Board and Re-Survey Medical Boards to hold that since the disability
of the appellant was less than 20%, he would not be entitled to the
disability element of the disability pension. Tribunal did not examine
the issue as to whether the disability was attributable to or aggravated
by military service. In the instant case neither has it been mentioned by
the Invaliding Medical Board nor by the Re-Survey Medical Boards
that the disease for which the appellant was invalided out of service
could not be detected at the time of entry into military service. As a
matter of fact, the Invaliding Medical Board was quite categorical that
no disability of the appellant existed before entering service. As would
be evident from the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the law has by
now crystalized that if there is no note or report of the Medical Board
at the time of entry into service that the member suffered from any
particular disease, the presumption would be that the member got
afflicted by the said disease because of military service. Therefore the
burden of proving that the disease is not attributable to or aggravated
by military service rest entirely on the employer . Further, any disease
or disability for which a member of the armed forces is invalided out of
service would have to be assumed to be above 20% and attract grant of
50% disability pension.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MOHIT
Signing
Date:13.01.2026 12:05
W.P.(C) 130/2026 Page 5 of 9
47. Thus having regard to the discussions made above, we are of the
considered view that the impugned orders of the Tribunal are wholly
unsustainable in law. That being the position, impugned orders dated
22.01.2018 and 26.02.2016 are hereby set aside. Consequently,
respondents are directed to grant the disability element of disability
pension to the appellant at the rate of 50% with effect from 01.01.1996
onwards for life. The arrears shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per
annum till payment. The above directions shall be carried out by the
respondents within three months from today.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
11. In this background of law settled vis-à-vis 2008 Entitlement Rules we
have examined the facts of this case.
The Tribunal has held that the respondent is entitled to disability
element of pension in respect of his disability i.e., Primary Hypertension
assessed at 30% rounded off to 50% for life. The petitioner does not dispute
the disability of the respondent, which is borne out from the medical record.
The petitioner has only raised the issue of non-entitlement of the disability
element of the pension on the ground that the Medical Board has held that
the diseases are not attributable to or aggravated by military service. The
opinion rendered by the Medical Board is extracted hereinbelow:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MOHIT
Signing
Date:13.01.2026 12:05
W.P.(C) 130/2026 Page 6 of 9
12. The respondent was enrolled in the Indian Air Force on 06.02.1987
and the disease was discovered on 25.11.2005, the time when the respondent
was serving and therefore the disease has indisputably arisen during his
military service. The Medical Board has merely recorded that the disease
6
was of unknown aetiology , which means that the Medical Board itself has
been unable to determine the cause of the disease. The Medical Board has
thus not ascertained and identified a cause, other than military service to
which the disease can be attributed. If no other casual connection for the
disease has been found to exist by the Medical Board, the plea of disability
pension cannot be rejected by the Military establishment and the officer
would be entitled to disability pension. (Re: Dropadi Tripathi v. Union of
7
India )
13. At this juncture it would be apposite to refer to the judgment of the
coordinate Bench of this Court in Union of India v. Col. Balbir Singh
(Retd.) (supra), wherein the Court emphasized on the significance of the
Release Medical Board recording clear and cogent reasons for denying the
entitlement of disability pension to the officer. The relevant paragraphs of
the said judgment are as under: -
“ 50. In this regard, it is further relevant to note the observations of
the Supreme Court in the Rajumon T.M. v. Union of India &Ors .,
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1064, the relevant portions of which reads as
under:
……
……
25. We, therefore, hold that if any action is taken by the
authority for the discharge of a serviceman and the serviceman
is denied disability pension on the basis of a report of the
Medical Board wherein no reasons have been disclosed for the
6
The definition of aetiology as per Shorter Oxford English Dictionary Sixth Edition Volume 1. A-M at
page 36 is the causation of disease
7
2025: DHC: 8709-DB at paragraphs 13 and 14
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MOHIT
Signing
Date:13.01.2026 12:05
W.P.(C) 130/2026 Page 7 of 9
opinion so given, such an action of the authority will be
unsustainable in law .”
(emphasis supplied)
51. In view of the above, it is essential for the Medical Boards to
record and specify the reasons for their opinion as to whether the
disability is to be treated as attributable to or aggravated by military
service, especially when the pensionary benefits of the Force
personnel are at stake.
……….
53. Particularly in this milieu, it is of paramount importance that
Medical Boards record clear and cogent reasons in support of their
medical opinions. Such reasoning would not only enhance
transparency but also assist the Competent Authority in adjudicating
these matters with greater precision, ensuring that no prejudice is
caused to either party.
………
56. It must always be kept in view that the Armed Forces personnel,
in defending this great nation from external threats, have to perform
their duties in most harsh and inhuman weather and conditions, be it
on far-flung corner of land, in terrains and atmosphere where limits
of mans survival are tested, or in air or water, where again surviving
each day is a challenge, away from the luxury of family life and
comforts. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the RMB to furnish cogent
and well-reasoned justification for their conclusions that the
disease/disability suffered by the personnel cannot be said to be
attributable to or aggravated by such service conditions. This onus
is not discharged by the RMB by simply relying on when such
disability/disease is noticed first .
………
77. Thus, in view of the above, the RMB must not resort to a vague
and stereotyped approach but should engage in a comprehensive,
logical, and rational analysis of the service and medical records of
the personnel, and must record well-reasoned findings while
discharging the onus placed upon it .”
(Emphasis Supplied)
14. In view of the aforesaid findings, the Petitioner’s challenge to the
grant of disability pension is without any merits. As held above, the report of
the Medical Board fails to give any cogent reasons for opining that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MOHIT
Signing
Date:13.01.2026 12:05
W.P.(C) 130/2026 Page 8 of 9
disease is not attributable to the military service and the respondent has
therefore, been rightly held entitled to disability element of pension as per
2008 Entitlement Rules.
15. We therefore find no merit in this petition; the petition is dismissed.
No costs.
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
JANUARY 07, 2026/ MG
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MOHIT
Signing
Date:13.01.2026 12:05
W.P.(C) 130/2026 Page 9 of 9