Onus lies on military establishment to prove lack of transition between disability and service under Entitlement Rules, 2008.

The Respondent was enrolled in the Indian Air Force on 28.12.1993 and discharged on 31.12.2019 after 26 years of service.

In October 2018, 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 the onset occurred at a "Peace Station" (Delhi) with no "close time association" to field or high-altitude service.

Consequently, the Petitioners rejected his disability pension claim on 08.01.2020.

The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) subsequently granted the benefit to the Respondent, leading the Union of India to challenge the decision via this writ petition.

Whether the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 2008, place the onus of proving attributability on the service personnel or the administration.

Whether the mere fact that a disease manifested while serving at a "peace station" is sufficient grounds to categorize a disability as NANA.

The court applied the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards to Armed Forces Personnel, 2008.

It relied on *Union of India v. Ex. Sub Gawas Anil Madso* and *Union of India v. Col. Balbir Singh (Retd.)*, which established that under the 2008 Rules, the burden of proof to disentitle an officer remains on the administration.

It further cited *Bijender Singh v. Union of India* and *Rajumon T.M. v. Union of India*, affirming that the Medical Board must provide "cogent reasons" and "causative factors" rather than mere conclusions to support a NANA finding.

Regulation 423(a) of the Regulations for the Medical Services of the Armed Forces, 2010, was also invoked to state that peace-station service does not automatically preclude attributability.

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

It reasoned that since the Respondent served for 25 years before the onset of Hypertension, the disease indisputably arose during military service.

The Court found the RMB’s justification—"onset in peace station"—legally insufficient, noting that a bald statement claiming a lack of "aggravating factors" does not constitute a reasoned medical opinion.

It emphasized that unless the Medical Board identifies a specific internal or external cause unrelated to service, the disability must be presumed to result from the "stress and strain" of military life.

Furthermore, as the RMB admitted the disability was not due to the Respondent’s negligence or misconduct, the denial of pension lacked a factual and legal basis.

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

The Court reaffirmed that the heavy onus to prove disentitlement under the 2008 Rules remains on the military establishment.