Military authorities cannot overrule Medical Board findings of service-related disability without cogent reasons and physical examination.

The Respondent was commissioned into the Army Medical Corps (AMC) on February 26, 2009, and served until his discharge on February 25, 2023, upon completion of his contractual tenure

In 2020, after 11 years of service, the Respondent was diagnosed with Primary Hypertension while posted at a field station in North Sikkim

The Release Medical Board (RMB), held on December 19, 2022, assessed his disability at 30% for life and opined that it was aggravated by military service due to the stress and strain of field operations

However, the Competent Authority and the Appellate Committee on First Appeals (ACFA) rejected the claim for disability pension, classifying the condition as "Neither Attributable Nor Aggravated" (NANA) by military service, asserting it was a constitutional metabolic disorder

The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) subsequently set aside this rejection and granted the disability pension

The Petitioners (Union of India) challenged the AFT order before the Delhi High Court, also filing the petition with a 360-day delay

1. Whether the disability of Primary Hypertension contracted during military service can be classified as NANA without cogent reasons or a Review Medical Board

2. Whether the burden of proof to establish a causal connection between the disability and military service lies with the officer or the military administration

3. Whether an administrative authority can overrule the findings of a Medical Board without conducting a physical examination via a Review Medical Board

4. Whether the writ petition was liable for dismissal on the grounds of gross delay and laches

The Court relied on the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 2008 (specifically Rules 6, 10, and 11), which dictate the criteria for attributability

It applied the precedent in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India, establishing a presumption of attributability for diseases contracted during service

Following Bijender Singh v. Union of India and Union of India v. Col. Balbir Singh (Retd.), the court affirmed that the onus to prove disentitlement rests solely on the military administration

Per Rajumon T.M. v. Union of India, a medical opinion labeling a disease as "constitutional" without supporting causative factors is considered unreasoned and invalid

Per Ex Sapper Mohinder Singh v. Union of India, administrative authorities cannot overrule a Medical Board's finding without a Review Medical Board

The Court observed that the Respondent’s hypertension emerged after 11 years of service during a field posting, satisfying the temporal requirement for service connection

It noted that the RMB—the primary medical body that physically examined the Respondent—categorically found the condition aggravated by service stress

The Court rejected the Petitioners' argument that the disease was "constitutional," noting that the ACFA failed to provide any scientific evidence or causative factors to support this conclusion or to differ from the RMB

The Court emphasized that under the 2008 Rules, the administration must provide "cogent reasons" to deny attributability, which they failed to do

The Court held that the Petitioners’ attempt to administratively overrule the RMB without a Review Medical Board was legally impermissible

The Court scrutinized the Petitioners' 360-day delay in filing the petition, finding the explanation insufficient and the conduct indicative of an "abject disregard for the legal process"

It held that the Respondent is entitled to the disability element of pension, rounded off to 50% for life, as originally granted by the AFT

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

The application for condonation of delay was dismissed