$~112 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 12.03.2026 + W.P.(C) 3139/2026 CM APPL. 15102/2026 CM APPL. 15103/2026 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Kameshwar Nath Mishra, Sr. Panel counsel with Ms. Vidya Mishra, Adv. versus 798106 SGT NARENDRA PRASAD GUPTA RETD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Banvendra Singh Gandhar, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J. (ORAL) CM APPL. 15103/2026 (for exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. 2. The application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 3139/2026 1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 25.09.2024 [‘impugned order’] passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi [‘Tribunal’] in Original Application [‘O.A.’] No. 2961/2023 titled as Ex Sgt Narendra Prasad Gupta v. Union of India & Ors., wherein the Respondent has been granted the benefit of the disability element of pension for the disability of Primary Hypertension assessed at 30% for life, rounded off to 50% for life, from the date of his discharge from the service. 2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are that the Respondent was discharged from the service on 30.06.2022 under the clause ‘on fulfilling the condition of his enrolment’. 3. The Release Medical Board [‘RMB’] held on 28.12.2021 assessed the disability i.e., Primary Hypertension at 30% for life. The RMB opined that since the disability is a lifestyle disorder and the onset of the disease was at the time when the Respondent was serving at peace station i.e., in December 2021 at Vadodara, the aforesaid disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated [‘NANA’] by the military service. 4. Respondent’s initial disability pension claim was rejected vide letter dated 18.10.2022 by holding that the disability was NANA. 5. Respondent filed O.A. No. 2961 of 2023 before the Tribunal for the grant of disability element of pension. In the said O.A., the Respondent had submitted that he will be satisfied if only his claim for Primary Hypertension is considered for the purpose of grant of disability pension. By the impugned order, the Tribunal after referring to the judgment 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 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 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. 6.2. He states in the facts of this case, Respondent was discharged from services on 30.06.2022 and therefore, the Respondent would be governed by Entitlement Rules, 2008. 6.3. He states that the impugned order incorrectly applies the presumption available under the repealed Entitlement Rules, 1982, ignoring the amended regime under Entitlement Rules, 2008, which does not raise a presumption in favour of the personnel. 6.4. 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 recorded in the opinion of the RMB for holding NANA, for the reasons recorded hereinafter 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 view of the fact that the Respondent was discharged from service on 30.06.2022, indeed the claim of disability pension would be governed by Entitlement Rules, 2008. 9. 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 said 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, contemplates 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’ or ‘LIFESTYLE DISORDER’ 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. 10. For reference, we also note that the Supreme Court in its recent judgment in the case of Bijender Singh vs. Union of India5 has reiterated that it is incumbent upon the Medical Board to furnish reasons for opining that a disease is NANA and the burden to prove the same 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’ in the RMB without giving reasons or causative factors to support such an opinion, is an unreasoned medical opinion. The Supreme 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. 11. In this background of settled law holding that the onus to prove disentitlement remains on military establishment and not the officer vis-à-vis Entitlement Rules, 2008, we have examined the facts of this case and the RMB. 12. The Respondent was enrolled in the Indian Air Force on 17.06.2002 and the disease/disability Primary Hypertension was discovered in the year 2021 [after 19 years of service], while he was serving in the Force and therefore, the disease has indisputably arisen during his military service. The Respondent was discharged from service on 30.06.2022 on fulfilling the condition of his enrolment. 13. 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 rendered by the RMB is extracted as under: - 14. The Petitioners contend that disease is NANA since the RMB records ‘onset of the disease was at a peace station’ and that there was no stress of the military service; and the disease was due to the lifestyle disorder of the officer/Respondent. This precise reason i.e., ‘onset in peace station’ has been specifically rejected by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Col. Balbir Singh (Retd.) (supra)7 and Union of India and Others v. Col. Koutharapu Srinivasa Retd.8 while granting disability pension to the officer, therein, similarly suffering from Primary Hypertension, and has been held to be an invalid ground for denying attributability to the military service. The Division Bench 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 a sufficient ground for the Medical Board and Military Establishment to deny attributability as well as disability pension to the officer. 15. In Col. Koutharapu Srinivasa Retd. (supra), the Division Bench held that opinion of the Medical Board merely stating that the disease of Primary Hypertension is a lifestyle disorder will not prove that the disease was not attributable to military service. The Court opined that in case the lifestyle of the officer is the cause of the disease, the medical opinion must reflect the causative lifestyle factors (i.e., enlist the reasons for such an opinion). In the present case as well, the RMB has merely classified the Respondent’s disease of Primary Hypertension as a lifestyle disorder. The RMB, however, says nothing about the specific lifestyle factors of the Respondent, which led to the cause of the disease. 16. It is now well settled that the Medical Board is obliged to record cogent reasons and the causative factors which in their opinion led to the personnel suffering from the said disease. If the Medical Board fails to identify the causal connection, the presumption is that the disease was suffered by the personnel due to the stress and strain arising from the military service. The statement in the subject RMB that ‘onset was in a peace area’ is not a legally valid ground for opining NANA. 17. No other ground has been cited in the RMB report of the Respondent for holding NANA. 18. 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. 19. Additionally, we note that the impugned order is dated 25.09.2024 and the petition has been filed after more than a year, without any explanation for such a delay. The Petitioner was obliged to comply with the impugned order of the Tribunal within four months and the same has not been complied with till date. Keeping in view that the claim of disability pension is beneficial in nature, we hold that filing of this petition is also barred by delay and laches. 20. We therefore find no merit in this petition; the petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, are disposed of. No costs. MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J V. KAMESWAR RAO, J MARCH 12, 2026/AM 1 2013 (7) SCC 361 2 2014 SCC Online SC 1761 3 2025: DHC: 2021-DB 4 2025: DHC: 5082-DB 5 2025 SCC OnLine SC 895 at paragraphs 45.1, 46 and 47 6 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1064 at paragraphs 25, 26, 32 and 36 7 At paragraph nos. 66 to 74 8 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4292 at paragraphs 5 and 16. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 3139/2026 Page 1 of 1