Military authorities bear the burden of proving non-attributability of disability through cogent reasons, notwithstanding onset at peace stations.

The Respondent was commissioned into the Indian Air Force on July 21, 1989, and took premature retirement on July 31, 2012, in a Low Medical Category.

The Release Medical Board (RMB) diagnosed him with ‘Moderately Severe Conductive Hearing Loss (RT) Ear,’ assessing it at 20% for life but classified it as "Neither Attributable to Nor Aggravated" (NANA) by military service.

The primary reason for the NANA classification was that the onset occurred while the Respondent was serving at a peace station.

The Respondent's claim and subsequent first appeal were rejected by the Petitioners.

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

The Union of India challenged this order via the present writ petition, filed approximately two years after the AFT’s decision.

Whether the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 2008, shift the onus of proving attributability of a disability from the administration to the officer.

Whether the onset of a disease at a "peace station" constitutes a sufficient medical reason to deny the causal connection between military service and disability.

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

The court applied the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards to Armed Forces Personnel, 2008, which govern disability claims for personnel retiring after their notification.

It relied on the Supreme Court precedents in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India and Union of India v. Ram Avtar regarding the presumption of attributability.

Furthermore, it applied 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, reasoned opinions to sustain a NANA finding.

The court also invoked Regulation 423 of the Regulations for the Medical Services of the Armed Forces, 2010, asserting that the location of service (peace vs. field) is not a sole criterion for denying disability pension.

The Court rejected the Petitioner's argument that the 2008 Rules removed the presumption of service connection.

It held that even under the 2008 regime, the burden of proof remains on the military administration to establish, with cogent reasons, that a disability arising during service is not related to military conditions.

The Court observed that the RMB provided no specific reasons for the NANA classification other than the "onset in peace station".

Relying on the Respondent's 21-year career as a pilot, the Court noted his continuous exposure to high-decibel noise in aircraft like Mig-21 and Mig-29, which directly linked his hearing loss to his service conditions.

The Court found the "peace station" argument legally invalid under established judicial precedents.

Additionally, the Court noted that the RMB itself admitted the Respondent was fit upon entry and that the disability was not due to negligence.

The Court held that the Respondent is entitled to the disability element of pension at 20% for life, rounded off to 50%, with arrears limited to three years prior to the filing of the O.A.

The Court further ruled that the petition was barred by delay and laches, as it was filed nearly two years after the impugned order without explanation.

The Petitioners were directed to comply with the AFT's directions without further delay.