Administration bears the onus of proving non-attributability; peace station onset cannot justify pension denial.

The Respondent was discharged from the Indian Air Force on 31.07.2017 in Low Medical Category A4G4 (P).

A Release Medical Board (RMB) held on 03.05.2016 assessed his disability, "Primary Angle Closure Glaucoma Both Eyes (Old)," at 40% for life but categorized it as Neither Attributable Nor Aggravated (NANA) by service.

The NANA finding was based solely on the fact that the onset of the disease occurred in 2009 while the Respondent was posted at a peace station.

Following the rejection of his claim and first appeal, the Respondent approached the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT).

The AFT granted the disability pension, which the Union of India challenged via the present writ petition, arguing that under the Entitlement Rules, 2008, there is no longer a presumption of service-connection in favor of the claimant.

1. Whether the Entitlement Rules, 2008, place the onus on the claimant to prove that a disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service.

2. Whether an RMB's opinion of "NANA" based solely on the disability arising at a "peace station" is a valid ground to deny disability pension.

3. Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite a three-year delay in filing.

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

It relied on Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India and Union of India v. Ram Avtar regarding the presumption of entitlement for disabilities manifesting during service.

It further integrated the principles from Bijender Singh v. Union of India and Rajumon T.M. v. Union of India, which mandate that the Medical Board must provide cogent reasons and identify specific non-service causes to sustain a "NANA" finding.

Finally, it applied Paragraph 35, Chapter VI of the 'Guide to Medical Officers (Military Pension), 2008' (GMO), which acknowledges that stress and fatigue can aggravate Glaucoma.

The Court rejected the Petitioners’ contention that the 2008 Rules shifted the burden of proof to the officer. It held that the administration retains the onus to prove the lack of a causal connection.

The Court found that the Respondent had served 24 years before the disease's onset, including stressful postings like the UN Mission in Congo.

Applying Para 35 of the GMO, the Court noted that stress and strain are known precipitating factors for Glaucoma.

The RMB's report was deemed legally insufficient because it failed to provide specific reasons for the "NANA" classification other than the "onset at peace station," which coordinate benches had already ruled as an immaterial factor.

Since the RMB did not record evidence of an absence of service-related mental or physical stress, the denial of pension was found to be without a reasoned medical basis.

It held that the Respondent is entitled to the disability element of pension at 40%, rounded to 50% for life, from the date of discharge.

The Court further ruled that the petition was barred by delay and laches, having been filed three years late without explanation.

The Petitioners were directed to comply with the tribunal's order immediately.