Onus lies on military authorities to provide cogent reasons for denying disability pension under Entitlement Rules, 2008.

The Respondent was enrolled in the Indian Air Force on August 13, 1976.

In 2009, after 33 years of service, he was diagnosed with Primary Hypertension.

He was discharged on January 31, 2014, upon superannuation in medical category A4G2(P).

The Release Medical Board (RMB) assessed his disability at 30% for life but opined it was "Neither Attributable to Nor Aggravated" (NANA) by service because the onset occurred at a "peace station" and was "constitutional in nature".

His claim for disability pension was rejected by the Petitioners on August 21, 2013.

The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) subsequently granted the disability element of pension, rounded off to 50%, following precedents like *Dharamvir Singh* and *Ram Avtar*.

The Union of India challenged this order via the present writ petition.

1. Whether the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 2008, place the onus of proving service connection on the claimant or the administration.

2. Whether a medical opinion stating a disease is "NANA" due to its onset at a "peace station" or its "constitutional nature" is sufficient to deny disability pension without specific causative reasons.

3. Whether the writ petition is 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 discharged post-2008.

It relied on Regulation 423(a) of the Regulations for the Medical Services of the Armed Forces, 2010, establishing that the location of onset (peace station) is immaterial to attributability.

The Court further applied the principles from *Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India*, *Bijender Singh v. Union of India*, and *Rajumon T.M. v. Union of India*, which collectively hold that the burden of proof for "disentitlement" remains on the military establishment and that medical boards must provide "cogent reasons" rather than "bald conclusions" to classify a disease as NANA.

The Court rejected the Petitioner's argument that the 2008 Rules did away with the presumption in favor of the claimant.

It reasoned that even under the 2008 Rules, if an officer is fit at entry and develops a disease during service, the onus remains on the administration to prove the disability is not service-connected.

The Court found the RMB's opinion—masking the denial under terms like "peace station" and "constitutional"—to be a "conclusion" rather than a "reasoned opinion".

Following the Supreme Court's mandate in *Rajumon T.M.*, the Court held that since the RMB failed to identify a specific non-military causative factor, and since the Respondent had no pre-existing condition, the disability must be deemed aggravated by service.

Furthermore, the Court noted that the Petitioners approached the High Court nearly two years after the AFT's order without explanation, justifying dismissal on grounds of delay.

The Court held that under both the 1982 and 2008 Entitlement Rules, the burden to prove disentitlement lies with the military authorities.

A finding of "NANA" based on "peace station onset" or "constitutional nature" is legally invalid unless supported by specific medical evidence of a non-service cause.

The Respondent is entitled to the disability element of pension at 30%, rounded off to 50% for life, with arrears restricted to three years prior to the filing of the O.A.

No costs were awarded.