$~94 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 19.01.2026 + W.P.(C) 18067/2025 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Abhishek Yadav,SPC versus HFO (MWO) RAJENDRA PRASAD SWAMI (RETD)

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Prabhakar Mani Tiwari, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL CM APPL. 74729/2025 (Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 18067/2025 & CM APPL. 74728/2025

3. This petition lays a challenge to order dated 14.05.2024 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi (‘Tribunal’)in Original Application No. 3056/2022 (‘OA’, for short), wherein, the Tribunal has allowed the OA filed by the respondent by stating in paragraphs nos.5 & 6, as under:-

“5. Accordingly, we allow this application and direct the respondents to grant disability element of pension to the applicant for Primary Hypertension @ 30% for life which be rounded off to 50% for life from the date of retirement i.e., 28.02.2021 in terms of the judicial pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Ram A vta.r (Civil Appeal No. 418/2012) decided on 10.12.2014.

6. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to calculate, sanction and issue necessary PPO to the applicant within four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the applicant shall be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum till the date of payment.

7. No order as to costs.”

4. The only submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Review Medical Board (‘RMB’, for short) in its report has clearly concluded that the disability of primary hypertension suffered by the respondent is due to lifestyle related reasons. It is also stated that the onset of disability was at a peace station and there is no close association to stress and strain relatable to the service.

5. In other words, the case of the petitioners is that the disability is neither attributable nor aggravated by the service. Their ground is that the order passed by the Tribunal is per incuriam without considering the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards to the Armed Forces Personnel, 2008 (Entitlement Rules, 2008) inasmuch as it failed to reconcile its decision with the amended Entitlement Rules, 2008 whereby, the general presumption to be drawn while ascertaining the issue of disability the principle of attributable to or aggravated by military service has been done away with.

6. Suffice to state that the in Union of India & Others v. 1481129 P Ex Hav Ram Kumar, 2026, DHC, 197-DB, this Court has held 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 pr