Absence of Service-Related Stress Rebuts Presumption of Attributability for Disability Pension Claims

The petitioner retired from the Indian Army on 31.05.2021 after more than 34 years of service.

On 12.05.2021, shortly before retirement, he was diagnosed with "Primary Hypertension" while posted at a peace station in Lucknow.

The Release Medical Board (RMB) assessed his disability at 30% for life but opined it was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service.

His subsequent First and Second Appeals were rejected by the Appellate Committees.

The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), Regional Bench, Chennai, upheld these decisions on 24.10.2024.

The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking a Mandamus to grant disability pension, arguing that the stress of command during COVID-19 and his long service duration established a nexus with the ailment.

Whether the petitioner's disability (Primary Hypertension) is "attributable to or aggravated by military service" under the 2008 Entitlement Rules to qualify for disability pension.

Whether the presumption of attributability established in *Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India* applies automatically to cases governed by the 2008 Pension Regulations and Entitlement Rules.

The court applied Regulations 37 and 53 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (as amended), which stipulate that disability element is granted only if the disability is recorded as attributable to or aggravated by service by the RMB.

It relied on Rule 10(b) of the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 2008, which requires two simultaneous conditions for disease-based claims: the disease must arise during service and be caused by service conditions.

The court further applied the principles from *Ex CFN Narsingh Yadav v. Union of India* and *Union of India v. Ex Sep R. Munusamy*, establishing that medical expert opinions should not be lightly discarded by courts and that the "presumptive factor" cannot be applied mechanically without establishing a factual nexus between service conditions and the ailment.

The court reasoned that the petitioner had served predominantly in peace stations (serving only 2 years in a High Altitude Area out of 34 years), and the hypertension was detected in a peace area just prior to retirement.

While the petitioner cited a Commanding Officer’s endorsement regarding COVID-19 stress, the court held that such general environmental stress does not override the specific clinical findings of the RMB.

The court distinguished *Dharamvir Singh* (2013), noting it was based on older 1982 rules; whereas under the 2008 Rules, there is a "paradigm shift" in the onus of proof and presumption.

Since the RMB—composed of medical experts—categorically stated the condition was not service-related, and the petitioner failed to provide "strong medical evidence" to the contrary, the court declined to substitute the medical opinion with its own.

The court affirmed the AFT's order, concluding that under the New Regulations and 2008 Entitlement Rules, disability pension is not an automatic right based on mere presumption; it requires a recorded finding of attributability by the RMB, which was absent in this case.

No order as to costs was made.