$~24 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 23.01.2026 + W.P.(C) 973/2026 CM APPL. 4681/2026 CM APPL. 4682/2026 UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE & ORS. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Abhishek Khanna versus EX HFO MANOJ KUMAR SINGH NO. 656613-N .....Respondent Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J. (ORAL

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 18.09.2024 (‘impugned order’) passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (‘Tribunal’) in Original Application (O.A.) 2563/2023 titled ‘Ex HFO Manoj Kumar Singh v. Union of India and Ors.’, whereby the Tribunal has granted disability pension.

2. The facts to be noted are that the respondent was enrolled into the Indian Air Force on 28.10.1983 and was discharged from the services on 31.12.2020. The Release Medical Board (‘RMB’) proceedings were held on 31.12.2020, wherein the RMB assessed the respondent’s disability of Diabetes Mellitus Type-II at 20% for life. It was further assessed that the aforesaid disabilities were neither attributable nor aggravated (‘NANA’) by military service. The RMB’s reasoning was that the onset of disease occurred in a peace area, with no history of posting in High Altitude Areas (‘HAA’).

The respondent’s claim for disability pension was rejected by the petitioners vide letter dated 01.11.2021 on the basis of the said RMB report. Therefore, the respondent approached the Tribunal by way of O.A.

2563/2023, praying for the grant of disability element of pension.

3. 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.

4. By the impugned order dated 18.09.2024, the Tribunal allowed the respondent’s claim and referred to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India and Ors., 2013 (7) SCC 316, and Union of India v.

Ram Avtar, 2014 SCC OnLine SC 1761 for granting the relief as claimed by the respondent herein.

5. The petitioners contend that the reliance placed by the Tribunal on the judgment of Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India and Ors. (supra) is totally misplaced. The judgment applies to cases where the causal connection between the disabilities and military service is either established or presumed based on specific facts, such as service in adverse conditions. The petitioners served exclusively at peace stations, without exposure to HAA, filed, or operational areas. Therefore, the causal nexus required to apply for relying on these legal precedents is absent in the facts of the present case.

6. It is contended that the Tribunal has failed to correctly apply the principles of attributability and aggravation under Paragraph 153 of the Pension Regulations for the Air Force, 1961 (‘1961 Pension Rules’), and Paragraph 26 of the Guide to Medical Officers (Military Pensions) 2002 (as amended). These provisions mandate that for disabilities to qualify for a pension, there must be a direct and proximate causal connection with military service conditions. The RMB conclusively determined that Diabetes Mellitus Type II was NANA. The Tribunal unjustifiably disregarded these findings without providing cogent reasons.

7. Having perused the reasons recorded in the RMB for opining NANA, we are unable to agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Tribunal committed any error in granting relief to this respondent.

8. It is a matter of record that w.e.f. 03.01.2008, the award of disability pension in all military forces, including the Air Force, will be governed by the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pension Awards to the Armed Forces Personnel, 2008 (‘2008 Entitlement Rules’). The challen