$~101

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Decision : 13.01.2026

+ W.P.(C) 415/2026 & CM APPL. 1959/2026

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners

Through: Mr. Jagdish Chandra Solanki, CGSC,

Mr. Siddharth Bajaj and Mrs. Maanya

Saxena, Adv.

Sgt. Mritunjay and Sgt. Padam

Charan, DAV Legal Cell, Air Force.

versus

626111-K WO RODRIGUES RUDOLPH FRANCIS .....Respondent

Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL

1. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 19.05.2023 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (‘Tribunal’, for short) in Original Application No. 2083/2021 (‘OA’, for short), whereby the Tribunal has allowed the OA filed by the respondent

with the finding in paragraph no.18, as under:-

“18. Thus, the OA 2083/2021 is allowed and application is held entitled to the grant of the disability element of pension Diabetes Mellitus @ 30%, assessed compositely@ 50% for life, which in terms of the verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal 418/2012 dated 10.12.2014 titled as UOI & Ors. Vs. Ramavtar, the said disability is rounded off the 50%

from the date of discharge.”

2. The only submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Tribunal has overlooked relevant Entitlement Rules, 2008 as it failed to reconcile its decision with amended Entitlement Rules, 2008, wherein the general presumption to be drawn in order to ascertain the principle of ‘attributable to or aggravated’ by military service has been done away with. He also states that the rounding-off the disability of 30%, assessed compositely at 50% for life is erroneous.

3. This Court had previously in the case of Union of India Others v. P Ex Hav Ram Kumar, 2026:DHC:197-DB had held as under:-

“9. 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 2008 Entitlement Rules, an officer who suffers from a disease at the time of his release and applies for disability pension within 15 years from release of service, is ordinarily entitled to disability pension and he does not have any onus to prove the said entitlement. The 2008 Entitlement Rules, however, contemplate that in the event the Medical Board concludes that the disease though contracted during the tenure of military service, was not attributable to or aggravated by military service, it would have to give cogent reasons and identify the cause, other than military service, to which the ailment or disability can be attributed. The judgments hold that a bald statement in the report would not be sufficient, for the military department for denying the claim of disability pension. The burden to prove the disentitlement therefore remains on the military department even under 2008 Entitlement Rules and the aforesaid judgments emphasize on the significance of the Medical Board giving specific reasons for denial of this beneficial provision. The judgments hold that the onus to prove a casual connection between the disability and military service is not on the officer but on the administration.

10.We for benefit also note that the Supreme Court in its recent opinion in the case of Bijender Singh vs. Union of India and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 895 wherein at paragraphs 45.1, 46 and 47, the Supreme Court held as under:

“45.1. Thus, this Court held that essence of the Rules is that a member of the armed forces is presumed to be in sound physical and mental condition at the time of his entry into the service if there is no note or record to the contrary made at the time