Military authorities must provide cogent reasons to rebut the presumption of service-related disability under Entitlement Rules 2008.

The Respondent was enrolled in the Indian Air Force on September 12, 1988, and discharged on July 31, 2021.

The Release Medical Board (RMB) assessed his disability, Primary Hypertension, at 30% for life but classified it as "Neither Attributable to Nor Aggravated" (NANA) by military service.

The RMB reasoned that the ailment was a "lifestyle disorder" with its "onset in a peace station" (Kanpur).

The Respondent's claim for disability pension was rejected by the Petitioner on July 21, 2022.

The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) subsequently allowed the Respondent's application, granting him the disability element of pension rounded off to 50% for life.

The Union of India challenged this order via the present writ petition after a delay of over two years.

1. Whether the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 2008, shift the burden of proof onto the officer to establish a causal connection between the disability and military service.

2. Whether the findings of "onset in peace station" and "lifestyle disorder" by a Medical Board constitute sufficient cogent reasons to deny disability pension.

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

Regulation 423(a) of the Regulations for the Medical Services of the Armed Forces, 2010

Supreme Court precedents in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India and Union of India v. Ram Avtar regarding the presumption of attributability for disabilities arising during service

Union of India v. Col. Balbir Singh (Retd.) and Bijender Singh v. Union of India, which establish that the onus remains on the military administration to prove the lack of a causal connection through a reasoned medical opinion, even under the 2008 Rules

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

It held that an officer who suffers a disease during service is ordinarily entitled to disability pension unless the administration provides cogent reasons to prove otherwise.

The Court observed that the RMB's justification—"onset in peace station"—is legally invalid as disability occurring in peace conditions does not preclude attributability.

Furthermore, the court held that labeling Hypertension a "lifestyle disorder" without identifying specific causative factors or proving misconduct constitutes an unreasoned and invalid medical opinion.

Since the disease was discovered 13 years into the Respondent's service and the RMB failed to provide a reasoned link to factors other than military service, the court found the denial of pension unjustified.

It held that the Respondent is entitled to the disability element of pension for Primary Hypertension assessed at 30%, rounded off to 50% for life, effective from his retirement date.

Additionally, the court noted that the petition was grossly barred by delay and laches, as it was filed two years after the impugned order without explanation.