The burden of proof rests on the military establishment to prove that a service member's disability is not attributable to or aggravated by service. Generalized medical findings regarding lifestyle or station type are insufficient to rebut the presumption of sound health at the time of enlistment.

CM APPL. 982/2026

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2. The application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 217/2026 and CM APPL. 981/2026

3. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India lays the challenge to the order dated 10.05.2023 (‘impugned order’) passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (‘Tribunal’, for short) in O.A. 1257/2022 titled (639571) Ex. MWO Satyawan Bhardwaj v. Union of India and Others, wherein the respondent has been given the benefit of disability element of pension at 20% for life for the disability of Diabetes Mellitus Type II (old), rounded off to 50% from the date of retirement i.e. 31.07.2019 with 6% interest p.a. till the date of payment.

4. The facts to be noted are the respondent was enrolled in the Indian Air Force on 21.04.1981. He retired from service on 31.07.2019 under the clause “On Attaining the age of superannuation”. The Release Medical Board (‘RMB’, for short) proceedings were held on 20.09.2018, wherein the Medical Board assessed respondent’s disability of Diabetes Mellitus Type II (Old) for life at 20% for life. It was opined that the aforesaid disability was neither attributable nor aggravated by military service.

5. The respondent’s claim for disability pension was rejected by the petitioner vide letter dated 11.02.2019 on the basis of the said report and the same was conveyed to the respondent vide letter dated 31.05.2019. Therefore, the respondent approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. 1257/2022 praying for grant of disability element of pension. The respondent’s claim before the Tribunal for disability element of pension from the date of release was (i.e., 01.08.2019) on the ground that the respondent had developed the disease of Diabetes Mellitus Type II (Old) during the course of his service and in that sense, the disease is attributable to the military service.

6. By impugned order dated 10.05.2023, the Tribunal allowed the respondent’s claim and held that the respondent is entitled to disability element of pension in respect of disability of Diabetes Mellitus Type II (Old) compositely at 20% rounded off to 50% for life from the date of his retirement i.e., 31.07.2019. The Tribunal referred to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India and Ors. ¹2013 (7) SCC 361, and Union of India v. Ram Avtar²2014 SCC OnLine SC 1761 for granting the relief as claimed by the respondent herein.

7. The only submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the reliance placed by the Tribunal on the judgment of Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India and Ors. (supra) is totally misplaced as in the said case) the Supreme Court was concerned with the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 (‘1982 Entitlement Rules’, for short), whereas the case of the respondent needs to be considered under the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards to Armed Forces Personnel, 2008 (‘2008 Entitlement Rules’, for short).

The counsel for the petitioners contend that the Tribunal has overlooked 2008 Entitlement Rules, which govern attributability/aggravation. It no longer permits a blanket presumption in favour of the claimant. He states in the facts of this case, Respondent was discharged on 31.07.2019 and therefore, the respondent would be governed by 2008 Entitlement Rules. He states that the impugned order incorrectly applies the presumption under the repealed 1982 Entitlement Rules, ignoring the amended regime under 2008 Entitlement Rules. He states that 2008 Entitlemen