Nk Daya Ram vs Union Of India & Ors.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~101
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 13 October, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010497462026
+ W.P.(C) 15262/2026
NK DAYA RAM .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Indra Sen Singh and Mr. Zeeshan
Ali Khan, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Ira Singh, SPC with Mr. Ayush
Kasana, G.P., Ms. Bhawna and Mr. Ratnesh,
Advocates for Respondent No.1 to 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER PAL SINGH
JUDGEMENT
JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)
1. This writ petition is filed on behalf of the Petitioner under Article 226
of the Constitution of India challenging judgment dated 31.07.2023, passed
by Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench (Tribunal) in OA 536/2016,
whereby Petitioner’s claim for disability pension has been rejected.
2. Case of the Petitioner as pleaded is that he was enrolled in Indian
Army as Infantry Soldier/General Duty on 09.12.1996 after thorough
medical examination and at that stage, there was no note of any disease or
disability in his record. Upon attestation on 19.01.1998, Petitioner was
posted to 3 JAT Regiment for further service and remained medically fit and
in SHAPE-1 medical category for almost 14 years. During the course of
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15262/2026 Page 1 of 12
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
18:54:45
service, Petitioner was diagnosed with ‘Generalized Seizure’ by the Medical
Board on 26.01.2010 and placed in Low Medical Category (LMC) P3
(Temporary) w.e.f. 20.03.2010 and was subsequently permanently
downgraded to LMC P2 w.e.f. 07.10.2010.
3. It is stated that vide letter dated 06.07.2011, Respondents sought to
discharge the Petitioner due to non-availability of sheltered appointment.
Before discharge, Petitioner was subjected to Release Medical Board (RMB)
on 05.10.2011 held at Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt., which found the
Petitioner suffering from ‘Generalized Seizure’ and the disability was
assessed at 20% albeit the RMB opined that the disability was ‘neither
attributable to nor aggravated’ by military service. Petitioner was discharged
from service w.e.f. 31.12.2011 after completing service of 15 years and 23
days. By letter dated 09.02.2012, Army HQ approved the findings/
recommendations of RMB and held that Petitioner was not entitled to
disability pension in terms of Regulation 179 of Pension Regulations for the
Army, 1961 Part-I. First appeal dated 23.05.2012, filed by the Petitioner
against non-grant of disability pension was rejected vide order dated
10.09.2012 followed by rejection of second appeal dated 19.11.2015, which
was pending when the writ petition was filed. This led to filing of OA
536/2016 before the Tribunal and vide impugned judgment dated
31.07.2023, the OA was dismissed.
4. Perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the Tribunal primarily
dismissed the OA on the ground that from the material on record and the
averments made in the OA, there was no evidence to find even a remote
casual link to any service-related trauma, which could be considered to be a
contributory factor to the mental condition of the Petitioner. Reliance was
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15262/2026 Page 2 of 12
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
18:54:45
placed by the Tribunal on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Narsingh
Yadav v. Union of India, (2019) 9 SCC 667, where it was held that there
can be no mechanical application of the principle that any disorder not
mentioned at the time of enrolment is presumed to be attributable to or
aggravated by military service. The Tribunal also observed that primacy
must be accorded to the Medical Boards and in this context, placed reliance
on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ravinder
Kumar, (2015) 12 SCC 291.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the judgment of the
Tribunal is contrary to Rule 9 of the Entitlement Rules Casualty Pensionary
Awards to Armed Forces Personnel, 1982 (Entitlement Rules 1982), which
provides that claimant of disability pension shall not be called upon to prove
his or her entitlement and shall receive the benefit of any reasonable doubt.
Rule 14(b) provides that cause of death or disability shall ordinarily be
deemed to have arisen in service if no note of it was made at the time of
entrance of the individual in military service. Rule 19 further provides that
even in cases where attributability is not accepted, aggravation is to be
accepted unless worsening of disease did not persist on the date of
discharge/claim and Rule 5 significantly lays down that every member of the
service shall be presumed to be in sound physical and mental condition
except for any disability recorded at the time of entering the service and
consequently, any deterioration in health will be presumed to be attributable
to military service. Read together, these rules leave no doubt that if an
individual’s record at the time of entry does not contain a note of any pre-
existing disease or illness, any disease or illness incurred while in service
will be presumed to be attributable to military service and this position of
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15262/2026 Page 3 of 12
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
18:54:45
law was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of
India and Others, (2013) 7 SCC 316.
6. It is urged that the judgment in Dharamvir Singh (supra) was
subsequently referred to and relied upon by the Supreme Court in Union of
India and Another v. Rajbir Singh, (2015) 12 SCC 264 in a batch of
appeals and disability pensions were granted, restating and reaffirming the
legal proposition and this Court has passed several judgements, allowing
claims of disability pension, where individuals entered service without any
pre-existing disabilities/diseases and suffered disabilities while in service,
on the ground that disabilities will be presumed to be attributable to the
service conditions, in the absence of proof and reasoning by the Medical
Boards that disabilities were not attributable. More particularly, reliance is
placed on the judgment in Union of India and Others v. Ex. SGT Upendra
Kumar Bharti, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8018, where Petitioner was
diagnosed with ‘Generalized Seizure’ and disability was assessed at 20%
and the Tribunal allowed the claim of disability pension and this Court
upheld the order applying the principles culled out in Dharamvir Singh
(supra) and the earlier decision of the Division Bench in Union of India
and Others v. Ex Sub Gawas Anil Madso, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2018. In
light of these judgments, it is urged that the order of the Tribunal be set
aside and claim of the Petitioner for disability pension be allowed as there
was no note at the time of entry of the Petitioner in the Army that he was
suffering from Generalized Seizure and the disability is wholly attributable
to onerous service conditions.
7. Learned counsel for the Respondents per contra submits that
disability pension has been rightly denied as the disability incurred by the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15262/2026 Page 4 of 12
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
18:54:45
Petitioner was held to be neither attributable to nor aggravated by the
military service by RMB and findings and opinion of Medical Boards are
not subject to judicial review. It is trite that primacy ought to be given to the
opinion of Medical Boards, which comprise of experts in the field.
8. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and examined their
submissions.
9. Indisputably, Petitioner did not suffer from any disease or illness
when he was enrolled in the Indian Army in Infantry on 09.12.1996 and was
discharged from service after rendering 15 years and 23 days in the Army on
medical grounds. During the course of service, Petitioner was diagnosed
with ‘Generalized Seizure’ by the Medical Board held on 26.01.2010 and
placed in LMC P3 (T) w.e.f. 20.03.2010 and was later downgraded
permanently to P2 w.e.f. 07.10.2010. On the opinion of the RMB held on
05.09.2011, Petitioner was discharged from service w.e.f. 31.12.2011 and
while RMB assessed the disability at 20%, it opined that the disability was
neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service and this became the
basis of denial of disability pension to the Petitioner, both by the
Respondents and the learned Tribunal.
10. Petitioner seeks disability pension owing to the disability he incurred
during service, which became the basis of his release and Respondents deny
his claim on the ground that the disability is neither attributable to nor
aggravated by military service. The legal nodus arising before us is no
longer res integra. In Dharamvir Singh (supra), the Supreme Court
elucidated principles for determining the grant of disability pension and we
quote:-
“ 29. A conjoint reading of various provisions, reproduced above, makes it
clear that:
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15262/2026 Page 5 of 12
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
18:54:45
29.1. Disability pension to be granted to an individual who is
invalided from service on account of a disability which is attributable
to or aggravated by military service in non-battle casualty and is
assessed at 20% or over. The question whether a disability is
attributable to or aggravated by military service to be determined
under the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 of
Appendix II (Regulation 173).
29.2. A member is to be presumed in sound physical and mental
condition upon entering service if there is no note or record at the
time of entrance. In the event of his subsequently being discharged
from service on medical grounds any deterioration in his health is to
be presumed due to service [Rule 5 read with Rule 14(b)].
29.3. The onus of proof is not on the claimant (employee), the
corollary is that onus of proof that the condition for non-entitlement is
with the employer. A claimant has a right to derive benefit of any
reasonable doubt and is entitled for pensionary benefit more liberally
(Rule 9).
29.4. If a disease is accepted to have been as having arisen in service,
it must also be established that the conditions of military service
determined or contributed to the onset of the disease and that the
conditions were due to the circumstances of duty in military service
[Rule 14(c)].
29.5. If no note of any disability or disease was made at the time of
individual's acceptance for military service, a disease which has led to
an individual's discharge or death will be deemed to have arisen in
service [Rule 14(b)].
29.6. If medical opinion holds that the disease could not have been
detected on medical examination prior to the acceptance for service
and that disease will not be deemed to have arisen during service, the
Medical Board is required to state the reasons [Rule 14(b)]; and
29.7. It is mandatory for the Medical Board to follow the guidelines
laid down in Chapter II of the Guide to Medical Officers (Military
Pensions), 2002 — “Entitlement: General Principles”, including
Paras 7, 8 and 9 as referred to above (para 27).”
11. In Rajbir Singh (supra), the Supreme Court reiterated the legal
position and held that the essence of Pension Regulations, Entitlement Rules
and Guidelines to Medical Officers is that a member of the Armed Force is
presumed to be in sound physical and mental condition at the time of his
entering into service if there is no note or record to the contrary at the time
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15262/2026 Page 6 of 12
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
18:54:45
of such entry and in the event of his subsequent discharge on medical
ground, any deterioration in health is to be presumed to be due to military
service. This necessarily implies that no sooner a member of the Force is
discharged on medical ground his entitlement to claim disability pension
will arise unless the employer is in a position to rebut the presumption and
demonstrate that the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by
military service and that this position is reinforced by Rule 14(b) of
Entitlement Rules 1982. Relevant passages from the judgment are as
follows:-
“ 14. The legal position as stated in Dharamvir Singh case [Dharamvir
Singh v. Union of India, (2013) 7 SCC 316 : (2013) 2 SCC (L&S) 706] is,
in our opinion, in tune with the Pension Regulations, the Entitlement Rules
and the Guidelines issued to the Medical Officers. The essence of the
rules, as seen earlier, 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
service if there is no note or record to the contrary made at the time of
such entry. More importantly, in the event of his subsequent discharge
from service on medical ground, any deterioration in his health is
presumed to be due to military service. This necessarily implies that no
sooner a member of the force is discharged on medical ground his
entitlement to claim disability pension will arise unless of course the
employer is in a position to rebut the presumption that the disability which
he suffered was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service.
15. From Rule 14(b) of the Entitlement Rules it is further clear that if the
medical opinion were to hold that the disease suffered by the member of
the armed forces could not have been detected prior to acceptance for
service, the Medical Board must state the reasons for saying so. Last but
not the least is the fact that the provision for payment of disability pension
is a beneficial provision which ought to be interpreted liberally so as to
benefit those who have been sent home with a disability at times even
before they completed their tenure in the armed forces. There may indeed
be cases, where the disease was wholly unrelated to military service, but,
in order that denial of disability pension can be justified on that ground, it
must be affirmatively proved that the disease had nothing to do with such
service. The burden to establish such a disconnect would lie heavily upon
the employer for otherwise the rules raise a presumption that the
deterioration in the health of the member of the service is on account of
military service or aggravated by it. A soldier cannot be asked to prove
that the disease was contracted by him on account of military service or
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15262/2026 Page 7 of 12
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
18:54:45
was aggravated by the same. The very fact that he was upon proper
physical and other tests found fit to serve in the army should rise as indeed
the rules do provide for a presumption that he was disease-free at the time
of his entry into service. That presumption continues till it is proved by the
employer that the disease was neither attributable to nor aggravated by
military service. For the employer to say so, the least that is required is a
statement of reasons supporting that view. That we feel is the true essence
of the rules which ought to be kept in view all the time while dealing with
cases of disability pension.
16. Applying the above parameters to the cases at hand, we are of the view
that each one of the respondents having been discharged from service on
account of medical disease/disability, the disability must be presumed to
have been arisen in the course of service which must, in the absence of any
reason recorded by the Medical Board, be presumed to have been
attributable to or aggravated by military service. There is admittedly
neither any note in the service records of the respondents at the time of
their entry into service nor have any reasons been recorded by the
Medical Board to suggest that the disease which the member concerned
was found to be suffering from could not have been detected at the time of
his entry into service. The initial presumption that the respondents were
all physically fit and free from any disease and in sound physical and
mental condition at the time of their entry into service thus remains
unrebutted. Since the disability has in each case been assessed at more
than 20%, their claim to disability pension could not have been repudiated
by the appellants.”
12. It is relevant to note that in Rajbir Singh (supra), the Supreme Court
was dealing with several appeals instituted by Union of India against orders
of the Tribunal concerning different diseases/disabilities and in one of the
appeals, Respondent was diagnosed with ‘Generalized Seizures’, as is the
case before us, and the Supreme Court held that the Respondents having
been discharged from service on account of medical diseases/disabilities, the
disabilities must be presumed to have arisen in course of service and hence,
attributable to or aggravated by military service, in the absence of any
reason recorded by the Medical Board, which evidenced to the contrary.
Sans any note in the service records of the Respondents at the time of entry
recording pre-existing disability/disease/illness or reasons by the Medical
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15262/2026 Page 8 of 12
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
18:54:45
Board to suggest that the disability could not have been detected at the time
of entry, the disability will be presumed to be caused due to service
conditions. To the same effect are several judgements of this Court, but in
order to avoid prolixity, we may refer to judgment in Gawas Anil Madso
(supra), where following the aforesaid judgments disability pension was
granted and has been upheld by the Supreme Court and specifically, the
judgments in Union of India and Others v. Ex Lem (P) Satish Kumar,
2026 SCC OnLine Del 250 and Union of India and Others v. Ex Lme Raju
Kumar Tiwari, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8446, where the disability was
‘Generalized Seizure’ and orders of the Tribunal granting disability pension,
were upheld. This judgment will be incomplete without referring to a recent
judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Others v. Col. NC
Isaac (Retd.), 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1895, wherein the Supreme Court was
inter alia considering a long pending issue ‘whether Entitlement Rules, 2008
make a significant departure from Entitlement Rules, 1982’ and held that
mere addition of a casual requirement and removal of presumption of Rule 5
of Entitlement Rules, 1982 that when a member joins the service healthy and
leaves with a disability, it ought to be attributable to military service, does
not by itself change the core scheme of Entitlement Rules, 2008 because
other beneficial provisions broadly remain untouched. Relevant paragraphs
from the judgment are as follows:-
“ 29. Leaving apart the question of legal effect of Entitlement Rules, 2008,
the further question that arises for our consideration is whether the
Entitlement Rules, 1982 have actually been varied or modified by the
Entitlement Rules, 2008. The following is a comparative chart comprising
of each subject such as, presumption at entry, onus of proof, when cause of
disability is unknown, aggravation and benefit of doubt. As against each of
these subjects, we have indicated the position of the Rule as it existed
under the Entitlement Rules, 1982 and compared with the Entitlement
Rules, 2008.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15262/2026 Page 9 of 12
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
18:54:45
i. No significant change in core scheme
30. Having conducted a comparative analysis of the modifications in the
Entitlement Rules, 2008, our opinion against each subject is as follows -
30.1. Presumption at Entry of Service: Rule 5 of the Entitlement
Rules, 1982 clearly creates a presumption that a member of service is
in sound physical and mental health at the time of entrance, and as
such, any disability at the time of discharge would be attributable to
military service. Rule 5 of the Entitlement Rules, 2008 withdraws this
presumption by adding a causal connection requirement. It
notes ‘mere fact that a disease has manifested during military service
does not per se establish attributability to or aggravation by military
service’.
30.2. Causal Connection: Rule 8 of the Entitlement Rules, 1982 and
Rule 6 of the Entitlement Rules, 2008 even though the framing is
different, in substance, are identical. Rule 8 requires an appropriate
medical authority to certify the causal connection, while Rule 6 of the
Entitlement Rules, 2008 requires an appropriate authority to establish
a causal connection.
30.3. Onus of Proof: Rule 9 of the Entitlement Rules, 1982 holds that
the ex-servicemen will receive a reasonable benefit of doubt and that
they shall not be called upon to prove their disability is attributable to
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15262/2026 Page 10 of 12
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
18:54:45
service. Rule 7 of the Entitlement Rules, 2008 broadly carries forward
this rule position and continues to place the onus of proof on the
employer.
30.4. However, this rule carves out a narrow exception to this rule,
being claims made after 15 years of discharge/retirement/
invalidment/release. While this exception is significant for different
reasons, which shall be discussed, suffice it to say that Rule 7 of
Entitlement Rules, 2008 broadly carries forward Rule 9 of Entitlement
Rules, 1982.
30.5. Aggravation: Rule 20 of the Entitlement Rules, 1982 operates
for servicemen who have disabilities which may not be attributable to
service, but may have been aggravated by service. It assumes
aggravation unless it is specifically proved that aggravation was not
caused due to service. Rule 11 of the Entitlement Rules, 2008 not only
reproduces an identical scheme from the earlier rule, but also further
clarifies the Rule by noting that “disability shall be conceded
aggravated by service if its onset is hastened or the subsequent course
is worsened by specific conditions”.
30.6. When cause of disability is unknown: Rule 20(a) of the
Entitlement Rules, 1982 concedes attributability to military service in
cases where the cause of disease is unknown. Rule 10(b)(iii) of the
Entitlement Rules, 2008 parallels this logic and only clarifies that
attributability is to be conceded on basis of clinical picture and
current scientific medical application.
30.7. Conclusion : The mere addition of a causal requirement and a
removal of the presumption that when a member joins service healthy,
and, if, he leaves with a disability, it ought to be attributable to the
military service, does not, by itself, change the core scheme of the
Entitlement Rules, 2008 because the other beneficial provisions
broadly remain untouched. The onus to prove that the member's
disability is not attributable to service still lies on the employer. The
relevant rules regarding attributability and aggravation continue to
hold that if cause of disability is unknown, and presumption of
attributability is not rebutted, then the disability is attributable to
service. Rule 7 of the Entitlement Rules, 2008 read with Rule 423 of
the RMSAF, 2010 continue to generate a reasonable benefit of doubt
in favour of the service member.
xxx xxx xxx
31.1. The aforementioned High Court judgments in Bhaskaran, Anil
Madso and Col. Balbir Singh converge with our opinion that even though
Entitlement Rules, 2008 removed the automatic presumption and
strengthened the requirement of causal nexus, they did not dismantle the
claimant-protective structure of the Rules, particularly the continued
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15262/2026 Page 11 of 12
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
18:54:45
allocation of primary burden to the establishment and beneficial
principles governing attributability, aggravation and reasonable
doubt. Bhaskaran reaches the same conclusion that the onus of proof is
similar, with a minor caveat (reversal of onus in belated claims), and,
that attributability/aggravation to military service can be established
through causal connection, which, in our opinion, existed in Entitlement
Rules, 1982 as well. Anil Madso recognises that the Entitlement Rules,
2008 removed the earlier presumption under Rule 5, but still holds that
this did not automatically shift the burden of establishing entitlement onto
the claimant, since Rule 7 continues to place the initial burden on the
establishment.”
13. In light of the wealth of judicial precedent, we cannot subscribe to the
view taken by the Tribunal that there is no causal connection between the
service condition and the disability incurred by the Petitioner during service
sans any note of the Petitioner suffering from any disability at the time of
entry into service and a presumption has to be drawn that his disability
‘Generalized Seizure’ is attributable to military service. Petitioner is thus
entitled to disability pension @ 20%, rounded off to 50% w.e.f. 31.12.2011
for life. The arrears shall be paid to the Petitioner within three months from
today, failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. till date of
actual payment. Resultantly, the impugned judgment dated 31.07.2023 in
OA 536/2016 of the learned Tribunal as also impugned letter dated
09.02.2012 issued by the Respondents, rejecting the claim of the Petitioner,
are quashed and set aside.
14. Writ petition is thus allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
JYOTI SINGH, J
GURVINDER PAL SINGH, J
OCTOBER 13, 2026/ bh
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15262/2026 Page 12 of 12
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
18:54:45