Back
2026 Supreme(Del) 47
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. KAMESWAR RAO, MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, JJ.
MWO HFL Surendra Nath Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India and Another – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 5634 of 2025
Decided On : 23-02-2026
For the Appellant : Rakesh Kumar Yadav
For the Respondents: Ashish K. Dixit, Iqra Sheikh, Chetan Jadon, Umar Hashmi, Harshit Chitransh, Namita, Captain V. Shridhar, Padam Charan
Disability pension cannot be denied solely based on lifestyle disorders; there must be clear evidence linking the disability to service conditions, and mere assumptions by a Medical Board are insufficient.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226 and 227 - Disability pension - Petitioner's claim for disability pension due to Primary Hypertension and Coronary Artery Disease was denied by Armed Force Tribunal, which was quashed by the High Court - Relying on judgments regarding attributability of disabilities to military service - It was held that lifestyle disorders cannot automatically negate entitlement without proper evidentiary foundation - AFT's rationale of attributability to lifestyle and peace station conditions deemed unsustainable - Respondents directed to release disability pension at 50% for life, with arrears. (Paras 25, 26, 27, 28)
(B) Medical Board - Assessment of disabilities - Obligation on Medical Board to substantiate claims and reasons for attributability to service conditions - Mere classification as lifestyle disorder insufficient without demonstrated causative factors related to service. (Paras 12, 20, 21)
(C) Burden of proof - Burden lies with Military Establishment to prove non-attributability of disabilities to service conditions. (Paras 17, 24)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction under articles 226 and 227 (Para 1) |
| 2. factual background of petitioner's health issues (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. petitioner's arguments regarding service-related health deterioration (Para 6) |
| 4. respondents' arguments concerning personal health risks (Para 7) |
| 5. court's review of undisputed facts and rmb findings (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 6. rejection of unsustainable reasons for nana findings (Para 11 , 12) |
| 7. court's reasoning on causative factors for disabilities (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 8. final ruling on entitlement to disability pension (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
JUDGMENT :
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J.
W.P. (C) 5634/2025
1. This writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, assailing the order dated 05.12.2024 passed by the Armed Force Tribunal (‘AFT’) in the Original Application 912/2022 (‘O.A.’) whereby the petitioner’s application seeking the grant of disability element of the pension was denied.
Factual Matrix
2. The petitioner joined the Indian Air Force (‘IAF’) on 20 June 1980, without any disease and was placed in category ‘AYE’ shape 1.
3. During his service, the petitioner was posted in several Modified Field Areas. The petitioner was diagnosed with Primary Hypertension due to stress on 17.07.1999, and was later placed in LMC A4G2(P) for Primary Hypertension with lifelong medication.
4. On 21.04.2016, during one such posting, the petitioner, on account of severe chest pain, was admitted to Base Hospital Lucknow. The investigation revealed that his three-artery vessel was blocked, thus he was placed on the D1 list, which was followed by open heart surgery on 09.05.2016.
5. The petitioner was placed in LMC A4G3 (P) for Coronary Artery Disease, Triple Vessel Disease (‘CAD TVD’). The Release Medical Board (‘RMB’) assessed the disabilities of the petitioner as Primary Hypertension (old) at 30% and CAD TVD at 30%, and compositely it was assessed at 50% for life, while opining that the said disabilities are neither attributable to, nor aggravated by military service (‘NANA’).
Submissions by the petitioner
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the respondents overlooked the fact that the petitioner joined the IAF in 1980 and suffered from Primary Hypertension since July 1999 (i.e., 19 years of service). He states that the petitioner was placed in a Modified Field Area and was continuously assigned multiple duties and strenuous work, which further deteriorated and aggravated the petitioner’s health.
6.1. He states that the AFT overlooked the fact that paragraph 423(a) of the Regulations for Medical Services in the Armed Forces specifically within the context of the ‘Guide to Medical Officers (Medical Pensions) 2002, establishes a presumption that a member of the Armed Forces is presumed to have been in sound physical and mental condition upon entering service, except for any disabilities noted or recorded at the time of joining. In this regard, reliance is being placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court inUnion of India v. Angad Singh Titaria , (2015) 12 SCC 257 and the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court inUnion of India & Anr. v. Rajbir Singh , (2015) 12 SCC 264 .
6.2. He states that the AFT ought to have appreciated that before the onset of the disease of the petitioner, his weight was 74 kgs or less, and Body Mass Index (‘BMI’) was 25.6, which is within the permissible limits. Per contra, the AFT has considered only the last RMB weight, i.e., 79 kgs.
Submissions by the respondents
7. Learned counsel for the respondents’ states that the petitioner had a documented personal history of smoking and alcohol consumption as evidenced by the medical summary and the opinion of the specialist dated 23.08.2007.
7.1. He states that the petitioner was overweight since 2010, when his BMI was recorded as 27.37 kg/m2. He states that the petitioner consistently maintained a BMI above 25 kg/m2, indicating a persistent state of overweight without sustained
