$~87 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 27.01.2026 + W.P.(C) 1098/2026 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr Ashish K Dixit, CGSC and Mr Umar Hashmi, Ms Iqra Shiesh and Ms Namita, Advocates.

versus OM PRAKASH DUBEY .....Respondent Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J. (ORAL CM APPL. 5348/2026 (exemption)

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

2. The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 1098/2026 & CM APPL. 5347/2026(Stay)

3. This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 10.01.2024 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi [‘Tribunal’] in Original Application (‘O.A.’) No. 1146/2019 titled as Ex JWO Om Prakash Dubey v. Union of India & Ors., wherein the respondent has been granted the benefit of the disability element of pension for Primary Hypertension assessed at 30%, rounded off to 50% for life from the date of his discharge from the service.

4. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the respondent was enrolled in Indian Air Force on 15.07.1996 and was discharged from the service on 31.07.2016 under clause ‘on fulfilling the conditions of enrolment’. At the time of discharge, the Release Medical Board [‘RMB’] assessed his disability i.e., Primary Hypertension at 30% for life. The RMB opined that since the onset of the diseases was at the time when the respondent was serving at a peace station, the aforesaid disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated [‘NANA’] by the military service. 5. The respondent’s claim of disability pension was rejected by the Petitioner vide letter dated 30.11.2015 being the disability was found NANA by the service. The respondent filed his first appeal, that was rejected by the Appellate Committee on First Appeal [‘ACFA’] vide letter dated

26.02.2020.

6. Thereafter, the respondent filed O.A. No. 1146/2019 before the Tribunal for grant of disability element of pension. The Tribunal vide impugned order held that the respondent is entitled for disability element of pension for Primary Hypertension assessed at 30% for life, rounded off to

50% for life.

7. The respondent claimed before the Tribunal that he has served in the Indian Air Force at various places in different environmental and service conditions in his prolonged service, thereby, any disability at the time of his service is deemed to be attributable to or aggravated by military service.

8. By impugned order dated 10.01.2024, the Tribunal allowed the respondent’s claim. The Tribunal referred to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India and Ors., 2013 (7) SCC 361, Union of India v. Ram Avtar, 2014 SCC OnLine SC 1761 and other judgments for granting the relief as claimed by the respondent herein.

9. The only submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners 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 [‘Entitlement Rules, 1982’] whereas the case of the respondent needs to be considered under the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards to Armed Forces Personnel, 2008 [‘Entitlement Rules, 2008’].

10. The petitioners contend that the Tribunal has overlooked Entitlement Rules, 2008 which govern attributability and aggravation and no longer permit a blanket presumption in favour of the claimant. He states in the facts of this case, respondent was discharged on 31.07.2016 and therefore, the respondent would be governed by Entitlement Rules, 2008. He states that the impugned order incorrectly applies the presumption under the repealed Entitlement Rules, 1982 ignoring the amended regime under Entitlement Rules, 2008. He states that Entitlement Rules, 2008 have