The court affirmed that the burden of proof regarding disability pension entitlement rests with the military establishment under Entitlement Rules, 2008, thereby entitling the service member to pension for disabilities linked to military service.

JUDGMENT :

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J.

CM APPL. 61342/2025 (Exemption)

1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

W.P. (C) 14905/2025 & CM APPL. 61341/2025

3. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 23.11.2023 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi [‘Tribunal’] in Original Application [‘O.A’] No. 182/2019 titled asEx SGT Uttam Kumar Rai vs. Union of India & Ors.

4. The relevant facts, briefly stated, giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows:

4.1. The respondent, having been found medically and physically fit, was enrolled in the Indian Air Force on 18.11.1996 and was discharged from service on 30.11.2016 in low medical category A4G4(P).Before the discharge, the Release Medical Board [‘RMB’] held on02.05.2016 assessed the respondent’s disabilities - (i) Degenerative Disc Disease L4-L5 and L5-S1 (Old) at 20% for life [‘first disability’], (ii) Fracture Neck of 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th Metatarsal (RT) (Old) at 20% for life [‘second disability’] and (iii) Fracture Patella (RT) (OPTD) (OLD) at 30% for life [‘third disability’] compositely assessed at 60% for life.

4.2. The Medical Board opined that the respondent’s first disability was conceded to have been aggravated by military service and the respondent’s third disability was attributable to military service. Consequently, the respondent was sanctioned the disability element of pension at the rate of 40% for life in respect of his first and third disability.

4.3. The respondent’s second disability was, however, held to be neither attributable to nor aggravated [‘NANA’] by Air Force service. Aggrieved by the rejection of disability pension for the said disability, the respondent sent a Legal Notice cum Appeal dated 13.10.2018. The said appeal was rejected vide letter dated 28.12.2018, stating that only first and third disability was attributable by the military service.

4.4. Thereafter, the respondent filed O.A. No. 182/2019 before the Tribunal; vide impugned order, the Tribunal held that the respondent is also entitled for disability element of pension for his second disability i.e., Fracture Neck of 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th Metatarsal (RT) (Old) at 20% for life along with the other two disabilities. The Tribunal concluded that the respondent is entitled for disability element of pension for all three disabilities, compositely assessed at 60% for life, to be rounded off to 75% for life, from the date of discharge.

4.5. Being aggrieved by the aforementioned impugned order, the Petitioners have filed the present writ petition.

5. The petitioners have raised the issue of non-entitlement of the disability element of the pension with respect to the respondent’s second disability on the ground that the Medical Board has held that the disability is NANA to military service and there is no causal connection between the disability and the military services.

5.1. The petitioners contend that the Tribunal has overlooked the ENTITLEMENT RULES , 2008, which govern attributability and aggravation and no longer permit a blanket presumption in favour of the claimant/officer; and since the RMB has opined the disability to be NANA, the Tribunal could not have presumed a causal connection between the disease and the service. It is stated that in the facts of this case, the respondent was discharged on 30.11.2016 and therefore, the respondent would be governed by the ENTITLEMENT RULES , 2008. It is stated that the impugned order incorrectly applies the presumption under the repealed ENTITLEMENT RULES for Casualty Pensio