Onset of disability at peace station is insufficient to deny pension without cogent evidence of non-attributability.

The Respondent was enrolled in the Indian Army on January 25, 2004, and was discharged on March 31, 2022, upon reaching superannuation in a low medical category

In November 2020, after 16 years of service, he was diagnosed with Primary Hypertension

The Release Medical Board (RMB) assessed his disability at 30% for life but classified it as "Neither Attributable to Nor Aggravated" (NANA) by military service, citing that the onset occurred while the Respondent was posted at a "peace station"

The Petitioner (Union of India) rejected the Respondent’s claim for a disability pension on June 14, 2022

The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), relying on Supreme Court precedents, set aside the rejection and granted the disability pension

The Union of India challenged this order via the present writ petition, arguing that under the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 2008, there is no longer a blanket presumption of attributability in favor of the claimant

1. Whether the Respondent is entitled to the disability element of pension under the Entitlement Rules, 2008, despite the RMB opining that the disability was NANA due to its onset at a peace station

2. Whether the onus of proving the lack of causal connection between military service and disability lies with the military administration or the individual under the 2008 Rules

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

The court primarily applied the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards to Armed Forces Personnel, 2008, and Regulation 53 of the Pension Regulations, 2008, which govern disability benefits for personnel discharged on completion of service

It relied on the legal principle established in Union of India v. Col. Balbir Singh (Retd.), which holds that the onset of a disease in a peace station is immaterial for denying disability pension

Furthermore, it followed the Supreme Court’s rulings in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India, Bijender Singh v. Union of India, and Rajumon T.M. v. Union of India, which establish that the burden of proof to disentitle a claimant remains on the military establishment and that the Medical Board must provide cogent, reasoned justifications rather than bald conclusions to support a NANA finding

The Court observed that even under the 2008 Rules, the administration bears the burden of proving that a disability is not related to military service

It noted that the RMB’s opinion—denying attributability solely because the disease originated at a "peace station"—was legally insufficient and had been previously rejected by coordinate benches as an invalid ground for denial

The Court highlighted that the Respondent entered service in a fit medical state, served for 16 years before the onset of the disease, and the RMB failed to identify any other causative factor or negligence to justify the NANA classification

Consequently, since the Medical Board provided only a conclusion without reasoned causative factors, the opinion was deemed unreasoned

Additionally, the Court noted that the Petitioners approached the High Court nearly two years after the AFT order without explanation, failing to comply with the mandated four-month implementation window

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

The Court affirmed that the onset of a disability in a peace station does not automatically disqualify a claimant from benefits and that the Petitioners failed to discharge the burden of proof required to deny the claim

Finally, the petition was also held to be barred by delay and laches

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