Military administration bears the burden of proving lack of service connection for disability under Entitlement Rules 2008.

The Respondent was enrolled in the Indian Air Force (IAF) on June 18, 1983, and was discharged on August 31, 2020, after 37 years of service

At the time of discharge, the Release Medical Board (RMB) assessed his disabilities—Primary Hypertension and Diabetes Mellitus Type-2—at a composite 40% for life

However, the RMB categorized the conditions as "Neither Attributable to Nor Aggravated" (NANA) by military service, citing that the diseases had their "onset in peace stations" and that Diabetes is a "metabolic disease"

The Petitioner (Union of India) subsequently rejected the Respondent’s claim for a disability pension

The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) set aside this rejection, granting the disability pension based on established precedents

The Union of India challenged the AFT's order through this writ petition, filed three years after the impugned order

1. Whether the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 2008, place the onus of proving a causal connection between disability and service on the claimant or the military administration

2. Whether the RMB’s findings of "onset in peace station" and "metabolic disease" constitute sufficient legal grounds to classify a disability as NANA

3. Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite a three-year delay in filing without explanation

Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards to Armed Forces Personnel, 2008

The burden of proving disentitlement remains on the military administration even under the 2008 Rules, and that "onset in peace station" is an invalid ground for denying attributability (Union of India v. Col. Balbir Singh (Retd.) and Union of India v. Ex. Sub Gawas Anil Madso)

Medical Boards must provide cogent, reasoned opinions rather than bald conclusions to support NANA findings (Bijender Singh v. Union of India and Rajumon T.M. v. Union of India)

The court found that since the Respondent’s diseases were discovered after 23 and 31 years of service respectively, they indisputably arose during military service

It rejected the Petitioner's contention that the 2008 Rules removed the presumption in favor of the claimant; instead, the court affirmed that the administration must proactively prove the absence of a causal connection

The court held that the RMB’s reliance on "onset in peace" was an invalid ground for denying pension, as service conditions in peace stations do not automatically preclude stress or exigency

Regarding Diabetes, the court characterized the RMB's label of "metabolic disease" as a "bald statement" lacking causative factors, noting it was contradictory since the RMB also recorded that the disability was not due to the officer's negligence

The court observed that the Petitioner had "slept over" the AFT order for three years, showing disregard for the legal process

The court held that the Respondent was entitled to the benefit under the Entitlement Rules, 2008, as the military failed to provide cogent reasons to rebut the presumption of service-connection; additionally, the petition was held to be grossly barred by delay and laches