[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Union Of India Through Secretary & Ors vs 681464 Ex Jwo Harekrushna Sahoo on 19 February, 2026
Author: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Bench: V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 19.02.2026
+ W.P.(C) 1013/2026 CM APPL. 4911/2026
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & ORS.
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhishek Yadav, SPC.
versus
681464 EX JWO HAREKRUSHNA SAHOO
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Kritendra Tiwari, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India against the order dated 13.04.2023 ['impugned order'] passed by the
Armed Forces Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi ['Tribunal'] in Original
Application ['O.A.'] No. 1655/2021 titled as Ex JWO Harekrushna Sahoo
v. Union of India & Ors., wherein the Respondent has been granted the
benefit of the disability element of pension for Primary Hypertension
assessed at 30% for life, rounded off to 50% for life, from the date of his
discharge from the service i.e., 31.01.2020.
2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are that the Respondent
was discharged from the service on 31.01.2020 under the clause 'on
attaining the age of superannuation'.
3. The Release Medical Board ['RMB'] held on 03.03.2019 assessed the
disability i.e., Primary Hypertension at 30% for life. The RMB opined that
since the onset of the disease was at the time when the Respondent was
serving at the peace station i.e., in November 2010 at Bangalore, the
aforesaid disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated ['NANA'] by
the military service.
4. The Respondent's claim of disability pension was rejected by the
Petitioners vide letter dated 11.12.2019 and the same was communicated to
the Respondent vide letter dated 13.01.2020. It is stated that an appeal filed
by the Respondent was also rejected.
5. In these facts, the Respondent filed O.A. No. 1655 of 2021 before the
Tribunal for the grant of disability element of pension. The RMB assessed
that the Respondent suffering from two ailments, however, in the O.A., the
Respondent only prayed for disability pension pertaining to one ailment i.e.,
Primary Hypertension. By the impugned order, the Tribunal after referring
to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of
India and Ors.1 and Union of India v. Ram Avtar2 granted the relief of
disability pension to the Respondent.
6. The only submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioners
is that the reliance placed by the Tribunal on the judgment of Dharamvir
Singh v. Union of India and Ors. (supra) is totally misplaced as in the said
case the Supreme Court was concerned with the Entitlement Rules for
2013 (7) SCC 361
2014 SCC OnLine SC 1761
Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 ['Entitlement Rules, 1982'], whereas the
case of the Respondent needs to be considered under the Entitlement Rules
for Casualty Pensionary Awards to Armed Forces Personnel, 2008
['Entitlement Rules, 2008'].
6.1. He contends that the Tribunal has overlooked the Entitlement Rules,
2008, which govern attributability and aggravation and no longer permit a
blanket presumption in favour of the claimant/officer; and since the RMB
has opined the disease to be NANA, the Tribunal could not have presumed a
causal connection between the disease and the service. He states in the facts
of this case, Respondent was discharged from services on 31.01.2020 and
therefore, the Respondent would be governed by Entitlement Rules, 2008.
He states that the impugned order incorrectly applies the presumption under
the repealed Entitlement Rules, 1982, ignoring the amended regime under
Entitlement Rules, 2008. He states that the Entitlement Rules, 2008, have
done away with the general presumption to be drawn to ascertain the
principle of 'attributable to or aggravated by military service'.
7. Having perused the reasons for NANA recorded in the opinion of the
RMB, we are unable to agree with the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the Petitioners that the Tribunal committed any error in granting
relief to this Respondent.
8. In another petition, i.e., W.P.(C) 88/2026 titled Union of India v.
781466 Ex. SGT Krishna Kumar Dwivedi, decided by this Bench on
06.01.2026, our attention was drawn to the authoritative judgments of the
coordinate Benches of this Court passed in W.P.(C) 3545/2025 titled Union
of India v. Ex. Sub Gawas Anil Madso3 and W.P.(C) 140/2024 titled
Union of India vs. Col. Balbir Singh (Retd.) and other connected
matters4, which have conclusively held that even under Entitlement Rules,
2008 an officer, who suffers from a disease at the time of his release and
applies for disability pension within 15 years from release of service, is
ordinarily entitled to disability pension and he does not have any onus to
prove the said entitlement. The judgments emphatically hold that even under
the Entitlement Rules, 2008, the onus to prove a causal connection between
the disability and military service is not on the officer but on the
administration. The Entitlement Rules, 2008, however, contemplate that in
the event the Medical Board concludes that the disease, though contracted
during the tenure of military service, was NANA by military service, it
would have to give cogent reasons and identify the cause, other than military
service, to which the ailment or disability can be attributed. The judgments
hold that a bald statement in the report of the Medical Board opining
'ONSET IN PEACE STATION' would not be sufficient for the military
department to deny the claim of disability pension; and rejected the opinions
of the Medical Board. The judgments hold that the burden to prove the
disentitlement of pension therefore remains on the military department even
under the Entitlement Rules, 2008; and emphasise on the significance of the
Medical Board giving specific reasons to justify their opinion for denial of
this beneficial provision to the officer.
9. For reference, we also note that the Supreme Court in its recent
2025: DHC: 2021-DB
2025: DHC: 5082-DB
judgment in the case of Bijender Singh vs. Union of India5 has reiterated
that it is incumbent upon the Medical Board to furnish cogent reasons for
opining that a disease is NANA and the burden to prove the absence of
causal connection is on the Military Establishment.
The distinction between conclusion and reasons has been succinctly
explained by the Supreme Court in another recent decision of Rajumon
T.M. v. Union of India6 to state that merely stating an opinion/conclusion,
such as 'CONSTITUTIONAL PERSONALITY DISORDER' without
giving reasons or causative factors to support such an opinion, is an
unreasoned medical opinion. The Court explained that the said opinion of
the Medical Board was merely a conclusion and would not qualify as a
reasoned opinion for holding the disease/disability to be NANA.
10. In this background of settled law holding that the onus to prove
disentitlement remains heavy on military establishment vis-à-vis Entitlement
Rules, 2008, we have examined the facts of this case and the RMB.
11. The Respondent was enrolled in the Indian Air Force on 25.08.1982
and the disease/disability of Primary Hypertension was discovered in the
year 2010 [after 28 years of service], while he was serving and therefore, the
disease has indisputably arisen during his military service. The Respondent
was discharged from service on 31.01.2020, on attaining the age of
superannuation with permanent low medical category A4G4(P).
12. The Petitioners have raised the issue of non-entitlement of the
disability element of the pension only on the ground that the Medical Board
has held that the disease is NANA by the military service. The opinion
2025 SCC OnLine SC 895 at paragraphs 45.1, 46 and 47
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1064 at paragraphs 25, 26, 32 and 36
rendered by the RMB is extracted as under: -
PART-V
OPINION OF THE MEDICAL BOARD
1 Casual relationship of the disability with service conditions or otherwise:
Disability Attributable to Aggravated by Not connected Reason/Cause specific
service (Yes/No) Service (Yes/No) with service conditions and period of
(Yes/No) service.
(i)Type-II No No Yes Onset: Nov 2010 at
Diabetes Banglore (Peace):·
Mellitus Onset occurred while
(ICD No. serving in peace area,
E11.0, there is no connection
Z 09.0) with combat areas
including Cl Ops area,
HAA service. MT
accidents or Flying
accidents \
and not due to stress
&Strain of service. No
delay in diagnosis.
Hence. Not attributable
to service and not
aggravated by service as
per para 26 of chapter
VI of GMO (MP) 2008.
(II) Primary No No Yes Onset: Nov2010 at
Hypertension Banglore (Peace) :-
(ICD No. l onset occurred while
10.0, Z 09.0) serving in peace; area.
there is no connection
with
combat areas including
Cl Ops area, HAA
service, MT accidents or
Flying accidents and not
due to stress & Strain of
service. No delay in
diagnosis. Hence. Not
attributable to
service and not
aggravated by service as
per para 43 of chapter
VI of GMO (MP) 2008.
Note: A disability not connected with service would be neither attributable nor aggravated by service. (This is in
accordance with instructions contained in (Guide to Medical Officers (Military Pension) 2008).
The second row pertaining to Primary Hypertension is relevant for this
judgment.
13. The Petitioners contend that disease is NANA since the onset of the
disease was at a peace station and that there was no stress of the military
service.
This precise reason has been specifically rejected by the coordinate
Bench of this Court in Col. Balbir Singh (Retd.) (supra)7 while granting
disability pension to the officer suffering from Primary Hypertension. This
reason has been held by the Division Bench to be an invalid ground for
denying attributability to the military service. The Court in the said decision
after taking note of Regulation 423(a) of the Regulations for the Medical
Services of the Armed Forces, 2010 held that the fact that the disability
occurred in normal peace conditions is immaterial and by itself is not
sufficient to deny disability pension to the officer. Therefore, the reliance
placed by the petitioners on the aforesaid reasoning in the RMB does not
constitute a valid ground for denying disability pension.
14. No other ground has been cited in the RMB for opining NANA.
In fact, the RMB herein categorically records in response to the
question no. 2 that the Respondent did not have this disability before
entering into service and also to the response of question no. 5 (a) and (b)
that the disability is not attributable to the officer's own negligence or
misconduct8.
15. In these facts, since no other causal connection for the disease has
been found to exist by the RMB, the Respondent's claim of disability
pension has been wrongly rejected by the Military establishment.
At paragraph nos. 66 to 74
Internal page 5 of the RMB; page 98 of paper-book.
16. It is pertinent to note that in the impugned order at paragraph 4, the
Tribunal categorically observed that peace stations have their own pressure
of rigorous military training and associated stress and strain of sthe service.
It was also noted that most of the personnel of the armed forces have to
work in the stressful and hostile environment, difficult weather conditions
and under strict disciplinary norms. This finding of the Tribunal is in
conformity with the law laid down by the Division Bench in Col. Balbir
Singh (Retd.) (supra).
17. In view of the aforesaid findings, the Petitioners' challenge to the
grant of disability element of pension to the Respondent, is without any
merits. The Respondent has been rightly held to be entitled to the disability
pension under the Entitlement Rules, 2008 by the Tribunal in the impugned
order.
18. We therefore find no merit in this petition; the petition is dismissed.
Pending application disposed of. No costs.
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
FEBRUARY 19, 2026/AM/hp
