Military administration bears the burden of proving non-attributability of disabilities through reasoned medical opinions.

The Respondent was commissioned in the Indian Navy on 27.07.2004 and was discharged on 31.07.2019 in a Low Medical Category after completing 15 years and 05 days of service

In 2012, while serving at a field station, he was diagnosed with ‘Mixed Mechanism Glaucoma with Advanced Glaucomatous Changes both Eyes’

The Release Medical Board (RMB) assessed his disability at 40% for life but opined it was Neither Attributable to Nor Aggravated (NANA) by military service

His claim for disability pension was rejected on 13.08.2019

The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) subsequently granted him disability pension, rounded off to 50% for life

The Petitioners (Union of India) challenged the AFT's order via this writ petition, arguing that the 2008 Entitlement Rules apply instead of the 1982 Rules and that the RMB's NANA opinion should be final

1. Whether the Respondent’s entitlement to disability pension is governed by the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 2008, and if the Tribunal erred in applying principles from the 1982 Rules.

2. Whether the Military Establishment discharged its burden of proof to demonstrate that the disability was not attributable to or aggravated by service conditions, despite the disease surfacing during active service.

3. Whether the writ petition is barred by the doctrine of delay and laches.

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

It relied on Union of India v. Col. Balbir Singh (Retd.) and Bijender Singh v. Union of India, establishing that even under the 2008 Rules, the onus remains on the administration to prove a lack of causal connection between service and disability by providing cogent reasons

Following Rajumon T.M. v. Union of India, the court noted that an unreasoned medical opinion (merely stating "NANA") is invalid

Furthermore, the court cited Union of India v. SGT Parmendra Kumar Singh, which held that for Glaucoma, the Medical Board must specifically exclude mental or physical stress as a causative factor to deny attributability

The court found that although the 2008 Rules applied to the Respondent [p. 3, para 9], they do not shift the burden of proof to the officer; the administration must still identify specific non-military causes for an ailment contracted during service

The Respondent’s Glaucoma surfaced after eight years of service while posted at a field station (INS Mysore), suggesting service-related stress as a precipitating factor

Upon examining the RMB report, the court observed that the board categorically recorded that the disability was not present prior to entry into service

However, the RMB failed to provide any reasoned evidence or positive findings to exclude "undue mental or physical stress" as a cause, as required by Paragraph 35, Chapter VI of the Guide to Medical Officers (GMO) 2008

Consequently, the Petitioners failed to rebut the presumption of aggravation

The court held that the RMB’s opinion was unreasoned and failed to meet the statutory requirements for denying attributability

Additionally, the court held the petition was barred by delay and laches, as it was filed nearly three years after the impugned order without any explanation

The Petitioners were directed to comply with the Tribunal’s order without further delay