$~56 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 23.01.2026 + W.P.(C) 1029/2026 CM APPL. 5002/2026 UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

.....Petitioners Through: Ms. Kangan Roda, SPC and Ms.

Apoorva Sharma, Adv.

versus

681225B EX MWO ASIS PRAMANIK .....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

1. The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 17.08.2023[‘impugned order’] passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi [‘Tribunal’] in Original Application [‘O.A.’] No. 730/2020 titled Ex MWO Asis Pramanik (681225-B) v. Union of India & Ors, wherein the Respondent has been granted benefit of the disability element of pension for Diabetes Mellitus Type -II [Old] ICD- E11, Z-09 at 20% for life, rounded off to 50% for life with effect from the date of discharge i.e. 31.01.2020.

2. The facts in the present case are that the Respondent was enrolled in the Indian Air Force on 23.08.1982 and was discharged from services on 31.01.2020 under the clause ‘on attaining the age of superannuation after rendering total 37 years and 162 days of regular service’. The Release Medical Board (‘RMB’) proceedings were held on 13.03.2019, wherein the RMB assessed Respondent’s disability of Diabetes Mellitus -II (Old) ICD- E11, Z-09 at 20% for life composite assessment for ID at 20% for life, the aforesaid disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated (‘NANA’), by the service.

3. The Respondent’s claim for disability pension was rejected by the Petitioner vide letter dated 30.06.2019 and was communicated to him vide letter dated 20.09.2019.

Thereafter, the Respondent approached the Tribunal for grant of disability element of pension. The Respondent claimed before the Tribunal that at the time of his entry into the Air force, he was subjected to a through medical examination, which found him medically fit in all aspects. He claimed that the onset of his disability was in October 2009 [i.e., after 27 years of service] when he was carrying out his administrative duties, which were strenuous and stressful.

4. By impugned order dated 17.08.2023 the Tribunal held the Respondent is entitled for disability element of pension and referred to the judgements 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 judgements for granting the relief as claimed by the Respondent herein.

5. 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 (‘1982 Entitlement Rules’, for short), 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’, for short).

The Petitioners contend that the Tribunal has overlooked 2008 Entitlement Rules, which presently govern attributability and aggravation and no longer permit a blanket presumption in favour of the claimant. She states in the facts of this case, Respondent was discharged on 31.01.2020 and therefore, the Respondent would be governed by 2008 Entitlement Rules. She states that the impugned order incorrectly applies the presumption under the repealed 1982 Entitlement Rules, ignoring the amended regime under 2008 Entitlement Rules. She states that 2008 Entitlement Rules have done away with the general presumption to be drawn in order to ascertain the principle of ‘attributable to or aggravated by military service’.

6. Having perused the opinion of the RMB, we are unable to agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the Tribunal committed any error in granting relief to this Resp