Military administration must provide cogent, reasoned evidence to rebut the presumption of service-attributability for disability pension claims.

The Respondent was enrolled in the Indian Air Force (IAF) on April 23, 1981, and discharged on April 30, 2020, upon reaching superannuation

During a Release Medical Board (RMB) on May 20, 2019, he was diagnosed with Primary Hypertension, assessed at 30% disability for life

The RMB opined the condition was "Neither Attributable to Nor Aggravated" (NANA) by military service, citing it as a "lifestyle disorder" with onset at a peace station (Bangalore) in 2016

Consequently, the Petitioners rejected the Respondent's claim for a disability pension on September 19, 2019

The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) subsequently allowed the Respondent’s Original Application, granting him the disability element of the pension

The Petitioners (Union of India) challenged the AFT order via this writ petition, arguing that the Entitlement Rules, 2008, governed the case and did not permit a presumption of attributability

1. Whether the Respondent’s entitlement to disability pension is governed by the Entitlement Rules, 2008, and if those rules shift the burden of proof to the claimant

2. Whether the RMB’s classification of a disease as a "lifestyle disorder" or "onset in peace station" constitutes sufficient grounds to deny attributability to military service

3. Whether the writ petition was 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 Union of India v. Col. Balbir Singh (Retd.), which established that even under the 2008 Rules, the onus remains on the military administration to prove a lack of causal connection between service and disability

The court further applied principles from Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India regarding the presumption of sound health at the time of entry

Rajumon T.M. v. Union of India, which mandates that medical opinions must provide causative factors rather than mere conclusions to be valid

The Court noted that since the Respondent was discharged in 2020, the 2008 Rules applied

However, it rejected the Petitioner's argument that these rules eliminated the administration's burden of proof.

Citing Col. Balbir Singh, the Court held that the administration must provide cogent reasons to deny disability pension if a disease manifests during service

The Court found the RMB’s reasoning—citing "onset in peace station" and "lifestyle disorder"—to be legally insufficient and "contradictory" because the RMB simultaneously recorded that the Respondent was fit at entry and that the disability was not due to negligence

Under Rajumon T.M., such unreasoned medical conclusions are invalid

Finally, the Court observed that the Petitioners filed the challenge after a 2.5-year delay without explanation, rendering the petition liable to dismissal on the grounds of laches

The Court held that the Respondent is entitled to the disability element of the pension for Primary Hypertension, assessed at 30% and rounded off to 50% for life, effective from his date of discharge

The Petitioners were directed to comply with the order forthwith

No costs were awarded