The burden is on the military department to prove that a disability is not attributable to or aggravated by military service; the Medical Board must give cogent reasons, and a bald statement of lifestyle disorder is insufficient.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)

CM APPL. 3638/2026(exemption)

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

2. The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 749/2026 & CM APPL. 3637/2026

3. This challenge in this petition is to an order dated 03.08.2023 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (Tribunal) in OA No.2146/2019, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the OA filed by the respondent herein by stating in paragraph 26 as under:

“26. Under the circumstances, the OA 2146/2019 is partially allowed and the applicant is to be held entitled to the grant of the disability element of pension qua the disability of ‘Primary Hypertension’ assessed @ 30% for life which is directed to be broad banded to 50% in terms of the verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs Ram Avtar decided on 10.12.2014 in Civil Appeal No. 418 of 2012 with effect from the date of his discharge from the Indian Army and the respondents are directed to issue the corrigendum PPO with direction to the respondents to pay the arrears within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the respondents would be liable to pay interest @6% p.a. on the arrears due from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.”

4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Tribunal could not have allowed the appeal as it is the case of the petitioner couched on the findings the Release Medical Board that the respondent has suffered disability in a peace area and for reasons neither attributable nor aggravated by military service.

5. In fact, it has been stated that the same is a result of an idiopathic/lifestyle related disorder. It is also her submission that the order of the Tribunal is per incuriam as it does not consider the case from the perspective of Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards to Armed Forces Personnel, 2008 wherein the general presumption while the principle of attributable to or aggravated by military service has been done away with. Suffice to state that in UOI & Ors. v. 1481129 P EX HAV Ram Kumar, 2026:DHC:197-DB, this Court has in paragraphs 9,10 and 13 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 Indi