[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Union Of India & Ors vs Wo Rodrigues Rudolph Francis on 13 January, 2026
Author: V. Kameswar Rao
Bench: V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
$~101
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 13.01.2026
+ W.P.(C) 415/2026 & CM APPL. 1959/2026
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Jagdish Chandra Solanki, CGSC,
Mr. Siddharth Bajaj and Mrs. Maanya
Saxena, Adv.
Sgt. Mritunjay and Sgt. Padam
Charan, DAV Legal Cell, Air Force.
versus
626111-K WO RODRIGUES RUDOLPH FRANCIS .....Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
1. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 19.05.2023
passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi
('Tribunal', for short) in Original Application No. 2083/2021 ('OA', for
short), whereby the Tribunal has allowed the OA filed by the respondent
with the finding in paragraph no.18, as under:-
"18. Thus, the OA 2083/2021 is allowed and application is held
entitled to the grant of the disability element of pension
Diabetes Mellitus @ 30%, assessed compositely@ 50% for life,
which in terms of the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in Civil Appeal 418/2012 dated 10.12.2014 titled as UOI
& Ors. Vs. Ramavtar, the said disability is rounded off the 50%
from the date of discharge."
2. The only submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners is
that the Tribunal has overlooked relevant Entitlement Rules, 2008 as it
failed to reconcile its decision with amended Entitlement Rules, 2008,
wherein the general presumption to be drawn in order to ascertain the
principle of 'attributable to or aggravated' by military service has been
done away with. He also states that the rounding-off the disability of 30%,
assessed compositely at 50% for life is erroneous.
3. This Court had previously in the case of Union of India Others v. P
Ex Hav Ram Kumar, 2026:DHC:197-DB had held as under:-
"9. In 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
Madso, 2025: DHC: 2021-DB and W.P.(C) 140/2024 titled
Union of India vs. Col. Balbir Singh (Retd.) and other
connected matters, 2025: DHC: 5082-DB, which have
conclusively held that even under 2008 Entitlement Rules, 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 2008
Entitlement Rules, however, contemplate that in the event the
Medical Board concludes that the disease though contracted
during the tenure of military service, was not attributable to or
aggravated 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 would not be
sufficient, for the military department for denying the claim of
disability pension. The burden to prove the disentitlement
therefore remains on the military department even under 2008
Entitlement Rules and the aforesaid judgments emphasize on
the significance of the Medical Board giving specific reasons
for denial of this beneficial provision. The judgments hold that
the onus to prove a casual connection between the disability
and military service is not on the officer but on the
administration.
10.We for benefit also note that the Supreme Court in its recent
opinion in the case of Bijender Singh vs. Union of India and
Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 895 wherein at paragraphs 45.1,
46 and 47, the Supreme Court held as under:
"45.1. Thus, this Court held that essence of the Rules is that a
member of the armed forces is presumed to be in sound physical
and mental condition at the time of his entry into the service if
there is no note or record to the contrary made at the time of such
entry. In the event of subsequent discharge from service on medical
ground, any deterioration in health would be presumed to be due to
military service. The burden would be on the employer to rebut the
presumption that the disability suffered by the member was neither
attributable to nor aggravated by military service. If the Medical
Board is of the opinion that the disease suffered by the member
could not have been detected at the time of entry into service, the
Medical Board has to give reasons for saying so. This Court
highlighted that the provision for payment of disability pension is a
beneficial one which ought to be interpreted liberally. A soldier
cannot be asked to prove that the disease was contracted by him on
account of military service or was aggravated by the same. The
very fact that upon proper physical and other tests, the member
was found fit to serve in the army would give rise to a presumption
that he was disease free at the time of his entry into service. For
the employer to say that such a disease was neither attributable to
nor aggravated by military service, the least that is required to be
done is to furnish reasons for taking such a view.
46. Referring back to the impugned order dated 26.02.2016, we
find that the Tribunal simply went by the remarks of the Invaliding
Medical Board and Re-Survey Medical Boards to hold that since
the disability of the appellant was less than 20%, he would not be
entitled to the disability element of the disability pension. Tribunal
did not examine the issue as to whether the disability was
attributable to or aggravated by military service. In the instant
case neither has it been mentioned by the Invaliding Medical
Board nor by the Re-Survey Medical Boards that the disease for
which the appellant was invalided out of service could not be
detected at the time of entry into military service. As a matter of
fact, the Invaliding Medical Board was quite categorical that no
disability of the appellant existed before entering service. As would
be evident from the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the law has
by now crystalized that if there is no note or report of the Medical
Board at the time of entry into service that the member suffered
from any particular disease, the presumption would be that the
member got afflicted by the said disease because of military
service. Therefore the burden of proving that the disease is not
attributable to or aggravated by military service rest entirely on
the employer. Further, any disease or disability for which a
member of the armed forces is invalided out of service would have
to be assumed to be above 20% and attract grant of 50% disability
pension.
47. Thus having regard to the discussions made above, we are of
the considered view that the impugned orders of the Tribunal are
wholly unsustainable in law. That being the position, impugned
orders dated 22.01.2018 and 26.02.2016 are hereby set aside.
Consequently, respondents are directed to grant the disability
element of disability pension to the appellant at the rate of 50%
with effect from 01.01.1996 onwards for life. The arrears shall
carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum till payment. The above
directions shall be carried out by the respondents within three
months from today."
(Emphasis Supplied)
4. Keeping in view the aforesaid position of law, we shall examine the
facts of this case.
5. The respondent was enrolled in the Indian Air Force on 31.12.1980 in
fit medical category. He was discharged on 31.08.2019 on attaining the age
of superannuation/ on fulfilling the conditions of enrollment after rendering
38 years 244 days of service.
6. It is to be noted that the respondent was detected to have Diabetes
Mellitus Type-II and Dyslipidemia during AME and placed in medical
classification A4G4(Temporary) (T-24) vide AFMSF-15 on 04.12.2012. He
was again placed in medical classification A4G1 vide AFMSF-15 dated
04.10.2014. He was thereafter, periodically examined for the disability and
was placed in medical classification A4G2 (Permanent) vide AFMSF-15
dated 04.10.2014. The Medical Board, however, assessed the disability of
the respondent as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service.
The respondent was released from service in medical classification
A4G4(Permanent) by the Medical Board held on 26.09.2018. The opinion
of the Medical Board is as under:-
7. The percentage of disablement was opined by RMB is as under:-
8. Having perused the opinion of RMB, we are unable to agree with the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Tribunal
has committed an error in coming to the conclusion, in the manner it has in
the impugned order.
9. This we say so, for the reason that the Medical Board has mainly
recorded the disease of the respondent and was unable to determine the
cause of the disease. The Medical Board has neither ascertained nor
identified the cause other than military service to which the disease can be
attributed. If no other causal connection for the disease has been found to
exist by the Medical Board, clearly disability pension cannot be rejected and
the personnel would be entitled to disability element in pension as held by
this Court in of the case Dropadi Tripathi v. Union of India, 2025: DHC:
8709-DB, in paragraph nos. 13 and 14 which we reproduced as under:-
"13. In our decision in Gwas Anil Madso, we have also noted
in this context the regulations of the respondents themselves,
particularly Rule 9 of the Entitlement Rules for Casualty
Pensionary Awards, 1982, in which it is specifically noted that
the onus to prove a causal connection between the disability
and military service is not on the candidate but on the
administration.
14. It is for the medical board to ascertain and identify the
cause, other than military service, to which the ailment or
disability can be attributed. If no such causal connection is
found to exist by the medical board, or even by the specialist
who has examined the candidate, the plea for disability pension
cannot be rejected."
10. At this juncture, we may also refer to the judgment of the Coordinate
Bench of this Court in Union of India vs. Col. Balbir Singh (Retd.) and
other connected matters, 2025: DHC: 5082-DB, wherein this Court laid
emphasis on the RMB record to be clear and show cogent reasons for
denying the entitlement of the disability element to pension. The relevant
paragraphs of the judgment are, as under:-
"50. In this regard, it is further relevant to note the observations
of the Supreme Court in the Rajumon T.M. v. Union of India
&Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1064, the relevant portions of
which reads as under:
......
......
25. We, therefore, hold that if any action is taken by
the authority for the discharge of a serviceman and
the serviceman is denied disability pension on the
basis of a report of the Medical Board wherein no
reasons have been disclosed for the opinion so given,
such an action of the authority will be unsustainable
in law."
(Emphasis supplied)
51. In view of the above, it is essential for the Medical Boards to
record and specify the reasons for their opinion as to whether
the disability is to be treated as attributable to or aggravated by
military service, especially when the pensionary benefits of the
Force personnel are at stake.
..........
53. Particularly in this milieu, it is of paramount importance
that Medical Boards record clear and cogent reasons in support
of their medical opinions. Such reasoning would not only
enhance transparency but also assist the Competent Authority in
adjudicating these matters with greater precision, ensuring that
no prejudice is caused to either party.
.........
56. It must always be kept in view that the Armed Forces
personnel, in defending this great nation from external threats,
have to perform their duties in most harsh and inhuman weather
and conditions, be it on far-flung corner of land, in terrains and
atmosphere where limits of mans survival are tested, or in air or
water, where again surviving each day is a challenge, away
from the luxury of family life and comforts. It is, therefore,
incumbent upon the RMB to furnish cogent and well-reasoned
justification for their conclusions that the disease/disability
suffered by the personnel cannot be said to be attributable to or
aggravated by such service conditions. This onus is not
discharged by the RMB by simply relying on when such
disability/disease is noticed first.
.........
77. Thus, in view of the above, the RMB must not resort to a
vague and stereotyped approach but should engage in a
comprehensive, logical, and rational analysis of the service
and medical records of the personnel, and must record well-
reasoned findings while discharging the onus placed upon it."
(Emphasis Supplied)
11. We may also refer to the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of Bijender Singh v. Union of India and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 895 wherein at paragraphs 45.1, 46 and 47, the Supreme Court held as
under:-
"45.1. Thus, this Court held that essence of the Rules is that a member
of the armed forces is presumed to be in sound physical and mental
condition at the time of his entry into the service if there is no note or
record to the contrary made at the time of such entry. In the event of
subsequent discharge from service on medical ground, any
deterioration in health would be presumed to be due to military service.
The burden would be on the employer to rebut the presumption that the
disability suffered by the member was neither attributable to nor
aggravated by military service. If the Medical Board is of the opinion
that the disease suffered by the member could not have been detected at
the time of entry into service, the Medical Board has to give reasons for
saying so. This Court highlighted that the provision for payment of
disability pension is a beneficial one which ought to be interpreted
liberally. A soldier cannot be asked to prove that the disease was
contracted by him on account of military service or was aggravated by
the same. The very fact that upon proper physical and other tests, the
member was found fit to serve in the army would give rise to a
presumption that he was disease free at the time of his entry into
service. For the employer to say that such a disease was neither
attributable to nor aggravated by military service, the least that is
required to be done is to furnish reasons for taking such a view.
46. Referring back to the impugned order dated 26.02.2016, we find
that the Tribunal simply went by the remarks of the Invaliding Medical
Board and Re-Survey Medical Boards to hold that since the disability
of the appellant was less than 20%, he would not be entitled to the
disability element of the disability pension. Tribunal did not examine
the issue as to whether the disability was attributable to or aggravated
by military service. In the instant case neither has it been mentioned by
the Invaliding Medical Board nor by the Re-Survey Medical Boards
that the disease for which the appellant was invalided out of service
could not be detected at the time of entry into military service. As a
matter of fact, the Invaliding Medical Board was quite categorical that
no disability of the appellant existed before entering service. As would
be evident from the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the law has by
now crystalized that if there is no note or report of the Medical Board
at the time of entry into service that the member suffered from any
particular disease, the presumption would be that the member got
afflicted by the said disease because of military service. Therefore the
burden of proving that the disease is not attributable to or aggravated
by military service rest entirely on the employer. Further, any disease
or disability for which a member of the armed forces is invalided out of
service would have to be assumed to be above 20% and attract grant of
50% disability pension.
47. Thus having regard to the discussions made above, we are of the
considered view that the impugned orders of the Tribunal are wholly
unsustainable in law. That being the position, impugned orders dated
22.01.2018 and 26.02.2016 are hereby set aside. Consequently,
respondents are directed to grant the disability element of disability
pension to the appellant at the rate of 50% with effect from 01.01.1996
onwards for life. The arrears shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per
annum till payment. The above directions shall be carried out by the
respondents within three months from today."
(Emphasis Supplied)
12. Suffice to state, the Supreme Court in the judgment has held that, if
the report of the Medical Board fails to give any cogent reason for finding
that the disease is neither attributable to nor aggravated by the military
service as is the case here and also does not give reasons, that the disease is
attributable to non-military reasons, the respondent shall be entitled to
disability element in pension as per Entitlement Rules, 2008, by the
Tribunal.
13. In view of our aforesaid conclusion, the petitioners' challenge to the
grant of disability pension by the Tribunal, is without any merits.
14. Even the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners
against the rounding-off the disability element of pension at 30%
compositely at 50% for life cannot be agreed to, in view of the judgment of
the Supreme Court in Bijender Singh (Supra). The Tribunal in this aspect
has rightly relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of
India & Ors. v. Ram Avtar, Civil Appeal No. 418/2012 dated 10.12.2014.
15. In view of the above, the petition along with pending application is
dismissed.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
JANUARY 13, 2026
rk
