Onus to prove non-attributability of disability remains on the administration even under Entitlement Rules 2008.

The Respondent was enrolled in the Indian Air Force on 07.09.1993 and discharged on 28.01.2009 in a permanent low medical category.

A Release Medical Board (RMB) held on 27.01.2009 assessed his disability, "Primary Hypertension," at 30% for life but classified it as "Neither Attributable to Nor Aggravated by" (NANA) military service.

The primary reason for the NANA categorization was that the disease onset occurred while the Respondent was posted at a peace station (Mumbai) and he had not served in field or high-altitude areas.

The Respondent’s claim for disability pension was rejected in 2009, and a subsequent legal notice was rejected in 2018.

The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) allowed the Respondent's Original Application (O.A. No. 883/2024), granting him disability pension rounded off to 50% for life.

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

1. Whether the Respondent’s claim for disability pension is governed by the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 2008, and if those rules shift the burden of proof regarding attributability to the claimant.

2. Whether a medical opinion designating a disability as NANA solely because it originated in a "peace station" is legally sustainable for denying disability pension.

3. Whether the writ petition is barred by the doctrine of delay and laches given the three-year gap since the impugned order.

The court primarily applied the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards to Armed Forces Personnel, 2008, which govern claims for personnel discharged after their notification.

It relied on the Supreme Court precedents in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India and Union of India v. Ram Avtar regarding the presumption of fitness upon entry into service.

The court further applied the principles from Bijender Singh v. Union of India and Rajumon T.M. v. Union of India, which mandate that the Medical Board must provide cogent reasons and identify specific non-service causes to sustain a NANA finding.

Finally, it referenced Regulation 423(a) of the Regulations for the Medical Services of the Armed Forces, 2010, establishing that the occurrence of disability in peace conditions does not inherently preclude attributability to service.

The Court rejected the Petitioners' argument that the 2008 Rules abolished the presumption of attributability.

It held that even under the 2008 Rules, the onus remains on the military administration to prove a causal connection between the disability and factors other than military service.

The Court observed that the Respondent was fit at the time of commissioning and served for 15 years before the onset of hypertension; thus, the disease is presumed to have arisen during service.

The RMB’s reasoning—that the onset occurred in a "peace station"—was deemed a "bald statement" and insufficient under the law to deny benefits.

Following coordinate bench decisions in Ex. Sub Gawas Anil Madso and Col. Balbir Singh (Retd.), the Court emphasized that "peace station" onset is immaterial if the administration fails to identify a specific non-military cause for the ailment.

Furthermore, the RMB itself recorded that the disability was not due to the officer's negligence or misconduct.

The Court held that the Respondent is entitled to the disability element of pension as per the Entitlement Rules, 2008.

It further held that the petition was barred by delay and laches, as it was filed nearly three years after the tribunal's order without explanation, and the Petitioners had failed to comply with the AFT's directions within the stipulated three-month period.

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