The burden to prove that a disability is not attributable to military service lies with the employer, with presumption favoring service-related attribution if no pre-existing conditions were noted at entry.

JUDGMENT :

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. This petition assails order dated 2 March 2023 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, [“the AFT”, hereinafter] in OA 1189/2019 whereby the respondent’s application for grant of disability pension on the ground that he suffers from Diabetes Mellitus Type-II with 20% disability, Hypertension with 30% disability and Dyslipidemia with 1-5% respectively under a broad term ‘Metabolic Syndrome’ and composite disability was assessed as 50% for life, 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. Shashank Dixit, learned CGSC 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, Primary Hypertension and Dyslipidemia. 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 36 years before he was diagnosed as suffering from Diabetes Mellitus Type-II, Hypertension and Dyslipidemia.

(ii) The respondent, in his self-declaration, specifically declared that he had not been suffering from Diabetes Mellitus Type-II, Hypertension and Dyslipidemia 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 reas on regarding the Diabetes Mellitus Type-II, Hypertension and Dyslipidemia suffered by the respondent has not been attributable to military service, as entered by the RMBreads thus:

“Metabolic Syndrome [(i) DM TYPE II (ii) HYPERTENSION (iii) DYSLIPIDEMIA]: Onset of ID in May 2013 while serving in peace area. There is no close line association of the onset with Fd/HAA/Cl Ops tenure or any other service related aggravating factors. Hence conceded as NANA.

(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