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

The Respondent was enrolled in the Indian Air Force on 25.08.1982 and served for 28 years until the onset of "Primary Hypertension" in November 2010 while posted at a peace station in Bangalore

He was discharged on 31.01.2020 upon attaining the age of superannuation

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 without connection to combat or high-altitude service

The Respondent’s claim for disability pension was rejected by the Petitioners

The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) subsequently granted the pension, which the Union of India challenged in this writ petition

Whether the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards to Armed Forces Personnel, 2008, place the burden of proof on the claimant to establish a causal connection between the disability and military service

Whether the mere fact that a disease manifested at a "peace station" is a sufficient legal ground to classify a disability as NANA

The court applied the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards to Armed Forces Personnel, 2008, and Regulation 423(a) of the Regulations for the Medical Services of the Armed Forces, 2010

It relied on the precedent in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India, which established a presumption of service-connection for diseases not noted at entry

Union of India v. Col. Balbir Singh (Retd.), which clarified that under the 2008 Rules, the onus remains on the administration to prove the lack of a causal connection

Furthermore, Bijender Singh v. Union of India and Rajumon T.M. v. Union of India were cited to emphasize that the Medical Board must provide cogent "reasons" rather than mere "conclusions" to deny attributability

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

It held that even under the 2008 regime, an officer who contracts a disease during service is ordinarily entitled to a disability pension unless the administration provides specific, cogent reasons identifying a non-service cause

The Court scrutinized the RMB’s opinion, noting it merely stated a conclusion—"Onset in Peace Station"—without explaining why the rigors of service did not contribute to the hypertension

Following the ratio in Col. Balbir Singh, the Court observed that peace stations involve rigorous training and disciplinary stress, thus making the "peace station" justification an invalid ground for denying attributability

Since the Respondent entered service in a fit state and no misconduct was noted, the military establishment failed to discharge its heavy burden of proof to rebut the connection to service

The High Court upheld the AFT's order, confirming the Respondent's entitlement to a disability pension of 30% for life, rounded off to 50%

The writ petition filed by the Union of India was dismissed with no costs