A disability pension is warranted when conditions arise post-service without attribution to pre-existing ailments, reinforcing the burden of proof lies with the employer under established rules.

JUDGMENT :
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. This petition assails order dated 13 February 2024 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal[“the AFT”, hereinafter] in OA 1762/2019 whereby the respondent’s application for grant of disability pension compositely assessed at the rate of less than 50% for life rounded off to 50%, disability have been allowed by the AFT.

2. The issue is covered by a recent decision rendered by us in UOI v Ex Sub Gawas Anil Madso , 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2018.

3. Nonetheless, we have heard Mr. Raghwendra Tiwari, learned CGSPC for the petitioners, and have perused the record.

(i) The respondent had served in the Indian Navy for over 14 years before he was diagnosed as suffering from Diabetes Mellitus Type-II and Primary Hypertension.
(ii) The respondent, in his self-declaration, specifically declared that he had not been suffering from Diabetes Mellitus Type-II and Primary Hypertension prior to joining the Indian Air Force. The declaration reads thus:

4. The respondent was released in Low Medical Category on his being found to be suffering from Diabetes Mellitus Type-II and Primary Hypertension. From the record, including the proceedings of the Release Medical Board[“RMB”, hereinafter], the following facts emerged:

The correctness of this declaration is not doubted either by the RMB or by the petitioner before the AFT or before this Court.

(iii) The reason regarding the Diabetes Mellitus Type-II and Primary Hypertension suffered by the respondent has not been attributable to Air Force service, as entered by the RMB reads thus:

“Primary Hypertension (I-10): Onset in peace (Goa). No close time association with service in Fd/Cl Ops/HAA/no dietary compulsions of service. Hence, NANA as per Para 43, CH-VI, GMO-2008.
Type-II Diabetes Mellitus (E-11): Onset in peace (Secunderabad). No close time association with service in Fd/Cl Ops/HAA/no dietary compulsions of service. No delay in diagnosis or treatment. Hence, NANA as per Para 26, CH-VI, GMO-2008 ”

(iv) We have already held, in our judgment in Gawas Anil Madso, that where the applicant was not suffering from the ailment at the time of entry into service, the RMB is required to positively identify the cause for the ailment, to justify a finding that it is not attributable to military service. The Commanding Officer’s certificate specifically states that the respondent was not responsible, owing to any act or omission of his, for the ailment from which he was suffering. The entry in that regard reads as under:

(v) Regarding para 43 of the Chapter VI of the GMO 2008, we have, in our judgment in UOI v WO Binod Kumar Sah (Retd), 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2355, observed thus:

“12. Para 43 of the Chapter VI of the GMO 2008, vivisected into its individual components, specifies that, while dealing with hypertension,
(i) the RMB is required to determine whether the hypertension is primary or secondary,
(ii) if the hypertension is secondary, entitlement consideration should be directed to the underlying disease process,
(iii) where disablement for essential hypertension appears to have arisen to, or become worse in, service, it has to be considered whether service compulsion caused aggravation,
(iv) in cases where the disease has been reported after long and frequent spells of service in Field/HAA/Active Operational Areas, the case could be explained by variable response exhibited by different individuals to stressful situations and
(v) prim