Disability pensions for military personnel are presumed service-related if no prior ailments are documented, and the burden of proof lies with the employer to show non-attributability.

JUDGMENT :

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. This petition assails order dated 17 October 2024 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, [“the AFT”, hereinafter] in OA 359/2019 whereby the respondent’s application for grant of disability pension on the ground that he suffers from Diabetes Mellitus Type-II with 20% disability and Primary Hypertension with 30% 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. Satya Ranjan Swain, CGSPC for the petitioners, and have perused the record.

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:

(i) The respondent had served in the Indian Army for over 31 years and 7 months 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 Army. The declaration reads thus:

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

“Type II DM: ID is a metabolic disorder with strong genetic preponderance and is per se not attributable to mil service. In the instance case, Onset of ID was in a peace station. Hence, the ID is conceded as neither attributable to nor aggravated by mil service in terms of Para 26, Chapter VI, GMO 2002/2008 and ER-2008.

Primary Hypertension: ID is idiopathic and is per se not attributable to mil service. In the instance case, Onset of ID was in a peace station. Hence, the ID conceded as neither attributable to nor aggravated by mil service in terms of Para 26, Chapter VI, GMO 2002/2008 and ER-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. Characterising the ailment as an “idiopathic” disorder certainly does not satisfy this requirement. 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 26 of the Chapter VI of the GMO 2008, we have, in our judgment in UOI v EX MWO HFO Bharat Tiwari , [2025 SCC OnLine Del 2358], observed thus:

“11. Para 26 of the Chapter VI of the GMO 20087, vivisected into its individual components, specifies that, while dealing with diabetes mellitus:

(i) DM is a metabolic disease,

(ii) DM is characterised by hyperglycaemia,

(iii) DM is of two types, Type I and Type II with the physiological and pathological reason for the arising of the disease,

(iv) Secondary diabetes is stated to be also attributable to dr