Union Of India And Ors vs Col. Mohit Nasa

$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
nd
% Date of Decision:02 November, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010392012026
+ W.P.(C) 12184/2026 and CM APPL. 56490/2026
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Tanvi Nigam, SPC with Mr.
Divyansh Nigam, Advocate and Major Anish
Muralidhar.


versus

COL. MOHIT NASA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Mohan Kumar, Ms. Neetu Singh,
Ms. Vishesh Tyagi and Ms. Ishika, Advocates.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER PAL SINGH
JUDGEMENT
JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

CM APPL. 56491/2026
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 12184/2026 and CM APPL. 56490/2026
3. This writ petition is filed on behalf of Union of India challenging the
impugned judgment dated 04.02.2026 passed by learned Armed Forces
Tribunal, Principal Bench (Tribunal) in OA 1075/2023 in favour of the
Respondent granting disability element of pension for disability ‘Primary
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:09.11.2026
17:59:23
W.P.(C) 12184/2026 Page 1 of 11

Hypertension’ @ 30% for life, rounded off to 50%, w.e.f. the date of
discharge.
4. To the extent relevant, case of the Respondent is that he was
commissioned in the Army on 16.12.1989 and discharged from service on
28.02.2023. The Release Medical Board (RMB) held on 31.08.2022 opined
that Respondent was fit to be released from service in Low Medical
Category S1H1A1P2(P)E1 for disabilities: (i) Beta Thalassemia @ 10% for
life; (ii) Primary Hypertension @ 30% for life; and (iii) Pre-diabetes @ 15%
for life and composite assessment was @ 46.45% for life, while the net
qualifying element for disability was recorded as ‘nil for life’ as disability
was treated neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service.
5. The claim of the Respondent was rejected by the Competent
Authority and decision was communicated vide letter dated 16.11.2022,
against which he preferred an appeal before the Appellate Committee for
First Appeals, which was rejected and decision was communicated vide
letter dated 26.04.2023 and the second appeal dated 08.05.2023 was
pending, when the OA was filed.
6. By the impugned judgment, Tribunal allowed the OA and directed
Petitioners herein to grant disability pension for ‘Primary Hypertension’ @
30% for life with rounding off to 50% for life since Respondent had
confined the relief to ‘Primary Hypertension’. Tribunal observed that the
disability had its onset in December, 2020, which was after more than 31
years of service in the Army and having so noted, Tribunal relied on the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India and
Others, (2013) 7 SCC 316 with regard to the presumption in terms of
Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 (Entitlement Rules
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:09.11.2026
17:59:23
W.P.(C) 12184/2026 Page 2 of 11

1982) as also Rules 6, 7, 10 and 11 of Entitlement Rules, 2008 dealing with
casual connection, onus of proof and attributability/aggravation as also
Regulation 423 of Regulations for the Medical Services of the Armed
Forces, 2010 (Regulations 2010) and more particularly, Para 43 of Chapter
VI of Guide to Medical Officers (Military Pension), 2002, as amended in
2008, pertaining to hypertension and concluded that since there was no note
in Respondent’s medical documents, when he joined service, the disability
will be presumed to be attributable to and aggravated by military service.
Tribunal also noted that there was no record to show that the disability was
hereditary or owing to unhealthy lifestyle or any family history of the
Respondent. Relaince was also placed on the judgment of this Court in
Union of India and Others v. Ex Sub Gawas Anil Madso, 2025 SCC
OnLine Del 2018. Significantly, Tribunal observed that Respondent’s
posting to field areas and CI areas between 1990-1993 and 1998-2001 as
also from 2012-2013 could not be ignored, while it was true that Respondent
was posted in peace station at the time of onset of disability and thus the
accumulated stress and strain of 31 long years of service was a contributing
factor for the onset of disability. Challenging this judgment, Union of India
is before us.
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the impugned
judgment suffers from legal infirmities, being contrary to statutory
framework governing disability pension as also the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Ex. Sep. R. Munusami, 2022
SCC OnLine SC 892. It is also argued that the judgment overlooks the
settled position of law that opinion of the Medical Board that the disability
is neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, must be given
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:09.11.2026
17:59:23
W.P.(C) 12184/2026 Page 3 of 11

primacy in the absence of perversity, mala fides or cogent medical evidence
to the contrary. Tribunal has also erroneously premised its decision on the
fact that the disease manifested during military service coupled with
Respondent’s long tenure and nature of postings, inasmuch as for grant of
disability pension, it is imperative that a casual nexus must be shown
between the disability and military service by virtue of Rules 5, 6, 7, 10 and
11 of Entitlement Rules, 2008.
8. Counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, defends the impugned
judgment and submits that when the Respondent joined service in 1989, he
was declared medically fit and there was no note of any pre-existing
disability in his medical record. The disability of ‘Primary Hypertension’
was a result of Respondent’s postings at various stations, where he was
subjected to onerous duties as also adverse weather and climatic conditions
and the stress and strains of the duties performed in areas of Arunachal
Pradesh, Nagaland, Assam etc. was a contributory factor. It is no longer res
integra that in such circumstances presumption is raised that the disability is
attributable to service, unless the employer discharges the onus of proving
that the military service had no connection with the disability incurred while
in service and Medical Board gives cogent reasons and evidence to support
this plea. Reliance is placed on the judgment in Dharamvir Singh (supra) as
also the Division Bench of this Court in Anil Madso (supra).
9. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and examined their
submissions.
10. Broadly understood case of the Petitioners is that the impugned
judgment overlooks Entitlement Rules, 2008, which mandate the existence
of casual connection between the disability incurred by the Respondent and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:09.11.2026
17:59:23
W.P.(C) 12184/2026 Page 4 of 11

condition for military service as also the fact that Respondent was posted in
peace area at the time of onset of the disability and that primacy must be
accorded to the opinion of the Medical Board, comprising of experts in the
field.
11. Indisputably, Respondent was commissioned in the Army on
16.12.1989 and was diagnosed with three disabilities, as aforementioned,
between 2019 and 2020, which included ‘Primary Hypertension’ in respect
of which Respondent confined his claim for disability pension before the
Tribunal. The RMB assessed the disability as neither attributable to nor
aggravated by military service in its opinion dated 31.08.2022, leading to
rejection of Respondent’s claim for disability pension. Respondent
admittedly served in the Army for over 3 decades and when he was
commissioned on 16.12.1989, there was no record of any pre-existing illness
or disease. In light of this undisputed factual position, case of the
Respondent is covered on all four corners by the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Dharamvir Singh (supra), where the Supreme Court elucidated
certain principles for determining grant of disability pension and two of
them were that a member of Force 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, to the contrary and any subsequent deterioration in health
will be presumed to be due to service. The onus of proof is not on the
employee and it is for the employer to prove the reason for non-entitlement.
In Union of India & Another v Rajbir Singh, 2015 SCC OnLine SC 119
referring to the judgment in Dharamvir Singh (supra), the Supreme Court
restated and reaffirmed this position of law.
12. The argument on behalf of the Petitioners that the Supreme Court in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:09.11.2026
17:59:23
W.P.(C) 12184/2026 Page 5 of 11

Dharamvir Singh (supra) , was essentially based on Entitlement Rules 1982
while the present case is based on Entitlement Rules, 2008 and therefore, it
is imperative to show a casual nexus between the disability and the military
service, in our view, holds no water in light of the recent judgment in Union
of India & Others v. Col. NC Isaac (Retd), 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1895,
where the Supreme Court inter alia dealt with the issue whether Entitlement
Rules, 2008 make a significant departure from Entitlement Rules 1982 and
comparing the relevant rules held that mere addition of a casual requirement
and removal of the presumption by amending Rule 5 of Entitlement Rules,
1982 and incorporating words ‘ the mere fact that a disease has manifested
during military service does not per se establish attributability to or
aggravation by military service ’, does not by itself, change the core scheme
of Entitlement Rules, 2008 because other beneficial provisions broadly
remain untouched. The Supreme Court observed that the onus to prove that
member’s disability is not attributable to service, still lies on the employer
and 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 and Rule 7 of
Entitlement Rules, 2008 read with Rule 423 of Regulations 2010 continue to
generate a reasonable benefit of doubt in favour of the service member.
Therefore, the fact that the present case falls under Entitlement Rules, 2008
while decision in Dharamvir Singh (supra) is based on Entitlement Rules
1982, makes no difference and this contention merits rejection.
13. Insofar as the argument of the Petitioners that Respondent is not
entitled to disability pension since the onset of disability was in peace area is
concerned, the same cannot be accepted. Division Bench of this Court in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:09.11.2026
17:59:23
W.P.(C) 12184/2026 Page 6 of 11

HFL Youdhisthir Singh Retd. v. Union of India & Others, 2026 SCC
OnLine Del 2747 was dealing with case of disability pension in respect of
‘Primary Hypertension’ and one of the contentions of Union of India was
that the onset of disease was in peace station. Rejecting this argument, Court
allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the Tribunal dismissing
the Original Application filed by the Petitioner, relying on the judgment in
Union of India and Others v. Col. Balbir Singh (Retd), 2025 SCC OnLine
Del 7873, wherein it was held that whether a disability or death occurs in
field or active service area or under normal peace conditions, is immaterial
as even in peace stations, military service is inherently stressful due to
combination of factors such as strict discipline, long working hours, limited
personal freedom and constant readiness for deployment. The psychological
burden of being away from family, living in isolated or challenging
environments and coping with uncertainty of sudden transfers or duties adds
to this strain. Additionally, toll of continuous combat training further
contributes to mental fatigue. Despite absence of active conflict or
challenges of hard area postings, the demanding nature of military life at
peace stations can significantly impact the overall well-being of personnel.
Relevant passages from the judgment are as follows:-
“ 66 . It would also be important to note the provision relevant to
attributability, that is, Regulation 423 of the Regulations for the Medical
Services of the Armed Forces, 2010. The said provision reads as under:
“423.(a). For the purpose of determining whether, the cause of a
disability or death resulting from disease is or not attributable to
Service. It is immaterial whether the cause giving rise to the
disability or death occurred in an area declared to be a Field
Area/Active Service area or under normal peace conditions. It is
however, essential to establish whether the disability or death bore a
causal connection with the service conditions.
All evidences both direct and circumstantial will be taken into account and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:09.11.2026
17:59:23
W.P.(C) 12184/2026 Page 7 of 11

benefit of reasonable doubt, if any, will be given to the individual. The
evidence to be accepted as reasonable doubt for the purpose of these
instructions should be of a degree of cogency, which though not reaching
certainty, nevertheless carries a high degree of probability. In this
connection, it will be remembered that proof beyond reasonable doubt
does not mean proof beyond a shadow of doubt. If the evidence is so
strong against an individual as to leave only a remote possibility in his/her
favor, which can be dismissed with the sentence “of course it is possible
but not in the least probable” the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
If on the other hand, the evidence be so evenly balanced as to render
impracticable a determinate conclusion one way or the other, then the
case would be one in which the benefit of the doubt could be given more
liberally to the individual, in case occurring in Field Service/Active
Service areas.
(b). Decision regarding attributability of a disability or death
resulting from wound or injury will be taken by the authority next to
the Commanding officer which in no case shall be lower than a
Brigadier/Sub Area Commander or equivalent. In case of injuries
which were self-inflicted or due to an individual's own serious
negligence or misconduct, the Board will also comment how far the
disablement resulted from self-infliction, negligence or misconduct.
(c). The cause of a disability or death resulting from a disease will be
regarded as attributable to Service when it is established that the
disease arose during Service and the conditions and circumstances of
duty in the Armed Forces determined and contributed to the onset of
the disease. Cases, in which it is established that Service conditions
did not determine or contribute to the onset of the disease but
influenced the subsequent course of the disease, will be regarded as
aggravated by the service. Adisease which has led to an individual's
discharge or death will ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in Service
if no note of it was made at the time of the individual's acceptance for
Service in the Armed Forces. However, if medical opinion holds, for
reasons to be stated that the disease could not have been detected on
medical examination prior to acceptance for service, the disease will
not be deemed to have arisen during service. ……”
67 . This provision was summarized in Rajumon T.M. (supra), wherein it
was observed as under:
“17. A careful examination of Regulation 423 of the Regulation for
Medical Services for Armed Forces would reveal the following
aspects:
1. It is immaterial whether the cause giving rise to the disability or
death occurred in an area declared to be a field service/active
service area or under normal peace conditions
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:09.11.2026
17:59:23
W.P.(C) 12184/2026 Page 8 of 11

2. It is, however, essential to establish that the disability or death
bore a casual connection with the service conditions.
3. All evidence, both direct and circumstantial, will be taken into
account and benefit of reasonable doubt, if any, will be given to the
individual.… … … …”
68 . From a plain reading of Regulation 423(a) of the Regulations for the
Medical Services of the Armed Forces, 2010, it is clear that whether a
disability or death occurs in a Field/Active service area or under normal
Peace conditions is immaterial.
69 . Nonetheless, it must be noted that even in Peace Stations, military
service is inherently stressful due to a combination of factors such as strict
discipline, long working hours, limited personal freedom, and constant
readiness for deployment. The psychological burden of being away from
family, living in isolated or challenging environments, and coping with the
uncertainty of sudden transfers or duties adds to this strain. Additionally,
the toll of continuous combat training further contributes to mental
fatigue. Despite the absence of active conflict or the challenges of hard
area postings, the demanding nature of military life at peace stations can
significantly impact the overall well-being of personnel.
70 . Undisputably, even when not on the front lines or in hard areas,
soldiers are aware that the threat is never far away. This environment,
where danger is a constant reality for their peers and could become their
own at any moment, creates a persistent state of mental and emotional
strain that cannot be overlooked. Thus, military service, whether in peace
locations or operational zones, inherently carries stress that may
predispose Force personnel to medical conditions such as hypertension.
71 . Moreover, it must be noted that lifestyle varies from individual to
individual. Therefore, a mere statement that a disease is a lifestyle
disorder cannot be a sufficient reason to deny the grant of Disability
Pension, unless the Medical Board has duly examined and recorded
particulars relevant to the individual concerned.
72 . Having taken note of the aforesaid, it is pertinent to refer to the
decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in Union of India v. WO Binod Kumar
Sah (Retd) in W.P. (C) 3918/2025, wherein it has been held as under:
“13. The mere fact that para 43 states that, in the case of an officer
who was serving in field areas, HAA, CIOPS or was on prolonged
afloat service when hypertension was first detected, there would be a
presumption that the hypertension was attributable to, or aggravated
by, military service, does not imply, as a sequitur, that, in all other
cases, the presumption would be otherwise. The contrapositive cannot
be implied.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:09.11.2026
17:59:23
W.P.(C) 12184/2026 Page 9 of 11

14. If an officer has undergone military service for 22 years before he
was found suffering from hypertension, there can, in our reckoning, be
no manner of doubt that an onerous duty would be cast on the RMB to
establish that the hypertension was not attributable to, or aggravated
by, military service. This would have to be established by cogent
material, after garnering all requisite evidence. The Supreme Court
has already laid down the nature of the exercise which has to be
undertaken by the RMB in such cases.”
73 . A reading of the above reinforces that disability pension cannot be
denied solely on the ground that the onset of the disability occurred while
the Force personnel were posted at Peace Station. Furthermore, it is
evident that when Force personnel have rendered prolonged military
service, there exists a substantial onus on the RMB to establish that the
hypertension is not attributable to or aggravated by military service.
74 . It is disheartening that members of our Armed Forces are being denied
disability pension solely on the aforementioned ground. This overlooks the
continuous physical and mental stress faced by soldiers, regardless of
their location.”
14. In light of this judgment, Petitioners can hardly argue that
Respondent’s posting in peace station where there was onset of disability,
will be an impediment in grant of disability pension. For the completeness of
record, we may otherwise note that the Tribunal has taken note of the fact
that Respondent’s entire tenure in the Army was not only in peace stations
and intermittently he was also posted in field and CI areas. Petitioners’
argument that due weight and credence must be given to opinions of
Medical Boards, comprising of experts in the field is beyond cavil. But the
opinion of the Medical Board cannot be seen in isolation and has to be read
in conjunction with Entitlement Rules, Medical Guide etc. It is no longer res
integra that the Medical Board while opining that the disability is neither
attributable to nor aggravated by military service, must give cogent reasons
for the conclusion after examining cases in light of etiology of the particular
disease. [Ref.: Anil Madso (supra); Balbir Singh (supra); and Union of
India & Ors. v. Ex Hav Ram Kumar, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 492]. In the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 12184/2026 Page 10 of
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:09.11.2026
17:59:23
11

instant case, Petitioners are unable to show that Respondent was suffering
from ‘Primary Hypertension’ at the time of his entry into service. Medical
Board has done precious little to show that the disability existed when the
Respondent was commissioned in service or was not due to service. As the
law stands today, the fact that record of the Respondent does not show
existence of ‘Primary Hypertension’ at the time of his induction into service,
will give rise to a rebuttal presumption that it was attributable to or
aggravated by military service and the presumption could have been
rebutted by the Medical Board establishing in its report that the disability
even if contracted in service was not attributable or aggravated, but that onus
has not been assiduously discharged in the present case.
15. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal
warrants no interference and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
16. Pending application stands disposed of.

JYOTI SINGH, J


GURVINDER PAL SINGH, J
NOVEMBER 2, 2026/ kd
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 12184/2026 Page 11 of
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:09.11.2026
17:59:23
11