$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 23.01.2026 + W.P.(C) 974/2026, CM APPL. 4683/2026 CM APPL. 4684/2026 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Jagdish Chandra, CGSC and Ms Maanya Saxena, Adv.

versus

726766 EX JWO SANJAY KUMAR SHARMA .....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 31.07.2023 (‘impugned order’) passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (‘Tribunal’) in Original Application (O.A.) 1323/2020 titled ‘Ex JWO(AUP) Sanjay Kumar Sharma v. Union of India and Ors.’, whereby the Tribunal has granted disability element of pension to the respondent in respect of disability Primary Hypertension at 30% and Diabetes Mellitus Type II at 20% (compositely for both disabilities at 40% life), rounded off to 50% with effect from the date of discharge of the respondent.

2. The facts to be noted are that the respondent was enrolled into the Indian Air Force (‘IAF’) on 19.01.1988 and was discharged from the services on 16.04.2019. The Release Medical Board (‘RMB’) proceedings were held on 02.02.2019, wherein the RMB assessed the respondent’s disability of (i) Alcohol Dependence Syndrome ICD-F10 at 0%, (ii) Primary Hypertension at 30%, (iii) Diabetes Mellitus Type-II at 20%, (iv) Obesity at 1-5% and (v) Dyslipidemia at 1-5% for life, with a composite assessment for all the disabilities at 60% for life, which were neither attributable nor aggravated (‘NANA’) by military service.

The respondent’s claim for disability pension was rejected by the petitioners vide letter dated 31.05.2019 on the basis of the said RMB report and was communicated to the respondent vide letter dated 29.06.2019. The respondent approached the Tribunal by way of O.A. 1323/2020, praying for the grant of disability element of pension.

3. The respondent claimed before the Tribunal that he has served in the IAF 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 31.07.2023, 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 for the disease of Primary Hypertension and Diabetes Mellitus Type-II.

It is pertinent to note that, however, the Tribunal rejected the disability element of pension for Alcohol Dependence Syndrome ICD-F10, Obesity and Dyslipidaemia.

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, as in the said case, the Supreme Court was concerned with the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 (‘1982 Entitlement Rules’), 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’).

6. It is contended that the Tribunal has overlooked the 2008 Entitlement Rules, 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 that the respondent was discharged on 16.04.2019, and therefore, the respondent would be governed by the 2008 Entitlement Rules. He states that the impugned order incorrectly applies the presumption under the repealed 1982 Entitlement Rules, ignoring the amended regime under the 2008 Entitlement Rules. He states that under the Entitlement Rules, 2008, the earlier general presumption for assessing whether a condition is ‘attributable to or aggravated by military servic