Administration bears onus to prove non-attributability of disability despite disease onset at peace station.

The Respondent, Ex JWO Vijay Shankar, was discharged from the Indian Air Force on 31.01.2020 after 35 years of service in a permanent low medical category.

The Release Medical Board (RMB) assessed his disability—Primary Hypertension—at 30% for life but opined it was Neither Attributable to Nor Aggravated (NANA) by military service.

The RMB’s reasoning was based on the fact that the onset of the disease occurred in 1999 while the Respondent was posted at a "peace station" (New Delhi).

The Respondent’s claim for disability pension and subsequent first appeal were rejected by the Petitioners.

The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) subsequently allowed the Respondent’s Original Application, granting him disability pension rounded off to 50% for life.

The Petitioners challenged the AFT order, arguing that the Entitlement Rules, 2008 (which govern the Respondent) do not permit a blanket presumption of service connection in favor of the claimant.

1. Whether a disability discovered during service can be declared "NANA" solely because its onset occurred at a peace station under the Entitlement Rules, 2008?

2. Whether the burden of proof to establish a causal connection between the disability and military service lies on the officer or the military administration under the 2008 Rules?

3. Whether the present writ petition is barred by delay and laches?

The court primarily applied the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards to Armed Forces Personnel, 2008.

It relied on the precedent set in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India, which emphasizes the presumption of fitness upon entry into service.

It applied the principles from Union of India v. Col. Balbir Singh (Retd.) and Bijender Singh v. Union of India, which establish that even under the 2008 Rules, the burden to prove disentitlement and provide cogent reasons for a "NANA" finding remains on the military establishment.

The court also invoked Regulation 423(a) of the Regulations for the Medical Services of the Armed Forces, 2010, stating that onset in peace conditions is not a sufficient ground to deny pension.

The Court observed that since the Respondent retired in 2020, the 2008 Entitlement Rules apply; however, these rules do not shift the burden of proof onto the officer.

The Court reasoned that if the Medical Board concludes a disease is NANA, it must provide specific, cogent reasons and identify a non-military cause for the ailment.

A "bald statement" that the onset occurred in a "peace station" is legally insufficient to deny the benefit, as hypertension can be triggered by service conditions regardless of the station's classification.

The Court noted that the Respondent had served for 14 years before the onset of the disease, and the Petitioners failed to provide any causal connection to factors other than service.

The Court found the Petitioners' delay of nearly a year in filing the writ petition, without explanation, to be a violation of the beneficial nature of the pension scheme.

It held that the Respondent is entitled to the disability element of pension for Primary Hypertension assessed at 30% (rounded to 50%) for life.

The Petitioners were directed to comply with the Tribunal’s order without further delay, noting that the challenge was both meritless and barred by delay and laches.