$~138 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 22.01.2026 + W.P.(C) 940/2026 CM APPL. 4604/2026 CM APPL. 4605/2026 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Ritu Reniwal, Sr. Panel Counsel versus

89760 Z CDR NS DHAMI .....Respondent Through: None CORAM:

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

CM APPL. 4604/2026 (for exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2. The application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 940/2026

3. This petition lays a challenge to an order dated 03.08.2023 passed by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. 1025/2019. The Tribunal has allowed the O.A. filed by the respondent by stating in paragraphs 7 and 8 as under:

“7. In view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements and the parameters referred to above, the applicant is entitled for disability element of pension in respect of disability Primary Hypertension'. Accordingly, we allow this application holding that the applicant is entitled to disability element of pension @ 30% rounded off to 50% for life with effect from the date of his discharge in terms of the judicial pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Ram Avtar (Civil Appeal No. 418/2012), decided on 10.12.2014.

8. The respondents are thus directed to calculate, sanction and issue the necessary PPO to the applicant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the amount of arrears shall be paid by the respondents, failing which the applicant will be entitled for interest @6% p.a. from the date of receipt of copy of the order by the respondents.”

4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is primarily that the Tribunal has erred in relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India, (2013) 7 SCC 361. She submits that, in terms of the Entitlement Rules of 2008, the presumption of disability attributable to or aggravated by the service has been done away with. Suffice to state that this Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. 1481129 P Ex Hav Ram Kumar, 2026:DHC:197-DB at paragraphs 9, 10 and 13 has held 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