$~118 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 21.01.2026 + W.P.(C) 860/2026 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Nishant Gautam CGSC, Ms.

Kavya Shukla Adv.

versus

625328 EX WO RAMCHANDRA GAUR .....Respondents Through: Appearance not given.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL CM APPL. 4208/2026 (Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 860/2026 & CM APPL. 4207/2026

3. This petition lays a challenge to the order dated 10.05.2024 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (‘Tribunal’) in Original Application No. 2143/2023 (‘OA’), whereby the Tribunal, has allowed the OA by stating as under in paragraph 4:-

“4. Accordingly, we allow this application and direct the respondents to grant disability element of pension to the applicant @ 30% for life which be rounded off to 50% for life from the date of retirement, i.e., 31.01.2018 in terms of the judicial pronouncement of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Ram A vtar (CiVJ1 Appeal No. 418/2012) decided on 10.12.2014. However, the arrears will be restricted to three years from the date of filing of this OA or the date of applicant's retirement/ discharge, whichever is lesser, in keeping with the law laid down in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Tarsem Singh /2008 (8)SCC 649].”

4. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is by referring to the opinion of the Release Medical Board (‘RMB’) wherein, the RMB has stated that the disability of hypertension is neither attributable nor aggravated by the service.

5. In fact, it is stated that it is a lifestyle related disorder and the onset of the disability was at a peace station. The law in this regard is well settled in the judgment of 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 & 13 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 tha