The presumption of sound health upon military service entry and the employer's burden of proof regarding disability attribution are critical in determining entitlement to disability pension.

JUDGMENT :

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. This petition assails order dated 24 September 2024 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, [“the AFT”, hereinafter] in OA 2715/2023 whereby the respondent’s application for grant of disability pension on the ground that he suffers from Primary Hypertension with 30% rounded off to 50% for life has 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. Prem Shankar Singh, learned CGSC for the petitioner, and have perused the record.

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

(i) The respondent had served in the Indian Army for over 26 years before he was diagnosed as suffering from Primary Hypertension.

(ii) The respondent, in his self-declaration, specifically declared that he had not been suffering from Primary Hypertension prior to joining the Indian Army. The declaration reads thus:

 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 Primary Hypertension suffered by the respondent has not been attributable to military service, as entered by the RMB reads thus:

“Primary Hypertension I-10: Constitutional disorder.”

(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) primary hypertension would be considered aggravated if it occurred while the officer was serving in field areas, HAA, CIOPS areas or prolonged afloat service.”

(vi) The RMB has certified the respondent as suffering from 30% disability on account of Primary Hypertension, lifelong.

5. In such circumstances, we have held in our decision in Ex Sub Gawas Anil Madso that the respondent would be entitled to disability pension.

6. We do not deem it necessary to reproduce our findings in the said decision, so as not to burden this judgment.

7. We have also been conscious of the fact that we are exercising certiorari jurisdiction over the decision of the AFT and are not sitting in appeal over the