$~121 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 22.01.2026 + W.P.(C) 918/2026 UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Himanshu Pathak, SPC with Mr.

Chetan Sharma, Adv versus EX NC E T CHANDRA PAL SINGH .....Respondent Through: Mr. O.S. Punia, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL CM APPL. 4524/2026 (Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 918/2026 & CM APPL. 4523/2026

3. This petition has lays to challenge the order dated 09.11.2023 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Original Application No. 2128/2021 (‘AO’), whereby the Tribunal, has allowed the OA by stating in paragraphs 16 & 17 as under:-

“16. Therefore, in view of our analysis, the OA 2128/2021 is allowed and the respondents are directed to grant benefit of disability element of pension @20% for life (for DM Type II (Old), rounded off to 50% for life in view of judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Ram Avtar (supra)

from the date of discharge i.e., 30.04.2019.

17. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to calculate, sanction and issue necessary PPO to the applicant within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the applicant shall be entitled to interest @6% p.a. till the actual date of payment.”

4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is primary that the order of the Tribunal is perverse as it did not consider the Entitlement Rules of 2008, wherein, the general presumption that onset of disability on the principle, attributable to or aggravated by military service have been done away with.

5. We are not in agreement with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, in view of the judgment given by this Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. 1481129 P Ex Hav Ram Kumar

2026:DHC:197-DB in paragraphs 9 & 10, which we reproduce 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 India and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 895, wherein at paragraphs

45.1, 46 and 47, the Supreme Court held as under:

“45.1. Thus, this Court held that essence of the Rules