$~100 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 21.01.2026 + W.P.(C) 854/2026 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Shouryendu Ray, SPC with Mr.

Yashendra Singhwal, Adv.

versus HONY CAPT SUB MAJ BHARAT SINGH RETD .....Respondent Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL CM APPL. 4165/2026 (Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 854/2026 & CM APPL. 4164/2026

3. This petition lays challenge to an order dated 14.10.2024 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (‘Tribunal’) in Original Application No. 869/2023 (‘OA’, for short), whereby the Tribunal has allowed the OA filed by the respondent by stating in paragraph 7 as under:-

“7. Accordingly, we allow this application holding that the applicant is entitled to disability element of pension for the disability of Primary Hypertension @ 30% for life rounded off to 50% for life and direct the respondents 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. Some of the facts as noted in this order are that the respondent was enrolled in the Indian Army on 28.02.1985. He was discharged from service on 31.12.2018 after putting in 33 years of service. The respondent was examined by a duly constituted Release Medical Board (‘RMB’) on 03.09.2018 which held the disability of Primary Hypertension at 30% for life was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service.

5. The submission of the counsel for the petitioners is that the Tribunal has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India & Ors, (2013) 7 SCC 316, which has no applicability as it pertains to Rules of 1982. He stated the presumption attributable to or aggravated by the military service has been done away with under the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary awards to the Armed Forces Personnel, 2008 (‘Entitlement Rules of 2008’).

6. It is the submission that the RMB has in clear terms opined that the disability of hypertension is neither attributed to or aggravated by the military service. Hence, in that sense, the respondent is not entitled to the disability element of the pension. He also relies upon the conclusion of the RMB which we reproduce as under:-

The RMB records onset of disability was at a peace station, which denotes sufficient reasons have been given by the RMB. It can be easily inferred that the disability of the hypertension could not have arisen because of the military service. His other submission is also that even if the RMB has not given any reasons while coming to the conclusion in the manner it has done in the opinion, this Court may remand the matter back to the RMB for a fresh determination, keeping in view the law laid down by this Court and the Supreme Court.

7. We are not in agreement with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. 1481129 P Ex Hav Ram Kumar

2026:DHC:197-DB, where in paragraphs 9, 10 & 13 reads 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 disa