$~99 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 15.01.2026 + W.P.(C) 515/2026 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Arti Bansal, CGSC, Ms. Shruti Goel, Adv.

versus SGT MANOJ KUMAR PANDEY (RETD.)

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Praveen Kumar, Mr. Amit Kumar and Mr. Navneet Krisha Mishra, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL CM APPL. 2497/2026

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

2. The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 515/2026 CM APPL. 2496/2026

3. This petition lays a challenge to an order dated 01.10.2024 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (‘Tribunal’) in Original Application (‘OA’ for short) No.3363/2023 wherein the Tribunal has allowed the OA by stating in paragraphs 3 to 6, as under:-

“3. The applicant was enrolled in the Indian Army on 19.06.1998 and discharged on 30.06.2018. The applicant submits that for the purpose of Primary Hypertension, the disability has been assessed @ 30%

for life as is evident from the medical records.

4. Keeping in view the consistent stand taken by this Tribunal based on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India and others (2013) 7 SCC 316 that Primary Hypertension may arise even in a peace area due to stress and strain of service, we see no reason not to allow the prayer of the applicant with regard to the disability Primary Hypertension, which has been assessed by the Release Medical Board @ 30%.

5. Accordingly, we partially allow this application and direct the respondents to grant disability element of pension to the applicant for Primary Hypertension @ 30% which be rounded off to 50% for life from the date of retirement i.e., 30.06.2018 in terms of the judicial pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Ram Avtar (Civil Appeal No. 418/2012) decided on 10.12.2014.

6. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to calculate, sanction and issue necessary PPO to the applicant within four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the applicant shall be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum till the date of payment.”

4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is primarily that the Tribunal has overlooked Entitlement Rules of 2008 which governs the issue of disability element of pension and no longer permit a blanket presumption in favour of the claimant.

5. She states, the respondent was discharged on 30.06.2018 and therefore, would be governed by the Entitlement Rules of 2008. She states that the impugned order incorrectly applied the presumption under the repealed Entitlement Rules of 1982. Her submission is also that, when the Release Medical Board (RMB) has opined that the respondent was posted in peace area, the presumption cannot be drawn against the petitioners herein. She also states the reliance placed by the Tribunal on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India and Ors., 2013 (7) SCC 361 is misplaced as the Supreme Court in the said case was concerned with the Rules of 1982.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would justify the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we at the outset, reproduce the opinion given by the RMB as under:-

8. In W.P.(C) 88/2026 titled Union of India v. 781466 Ex. SGT Krishna Kumar Dwivedi, decided by this Bench on 06.01.2026, our attention was drawn to the authoritative judgments of the Coordinate Benches of this Court passed in W.P.(C) 3545/2025 titled Union of India v. Ex. Sub Gawas Anil Madso, 2025: DHC: 2021-DB and W.P.(C) 140/2024 titled Union of India vs. Col. Balbir Singh (Retd.) and other connected matters, 2025: DHC: 5082-DB, which have conclusively held that, even under Entitlement Rules, 2008, an officer who suffers from a disease at the time of his release