$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 03.02.2026 + W.P.(C) 560/2026 UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF DEFECNE .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Gauri Goburdhun, SPC, Major Anish Muralidhar and Major Kanika Sharma.

versus NAIK DILWAR SINGH (RETIRED)

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Nawneet Krishna Mishra, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J. (ORAL CM APPL. 2759/2026 (Exemption)

1. Exemption is allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2. The application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 560/2026, CM APPL. 2760/2026

3. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 28.03.2024 [‘impugned order’] passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi [‘Tribunal’] in Original Application [‘O.A.’] No. 1094/2023 titled as Naik Dilwar Singh (Retd.) v. Union of India and Ors., wherein the Respondent has been granted the benefit of the disability element of pension for Primary Hypertension assessed at 30% for life, rounded off to 50% for life, from the date of his retirement from the service.

4. The facts giving rise to the present petition are that the Respondent was discharged from the service on 31.08.2022.

5. The Release Medical Board [‘RMB’] held on 07.06.2022 assessed the disability i.e., Primary Hypertension at 30% for life. The RMB opined that since the onset of the disease was at the time when the Respondent was serving at the peace station i.e., in February 2020 at Ranikhet, Uttarakhand, the aforesaid disabilities were neither attributable to nor aggravated [‘NANA’] by the military service.

6. The Respondent’s claim of disability pension was rejected by the Petitioners vide letter dated 18.08.2022. The Respondent sent a legal notice dated 06.03.2023 to the Petitioner no. 3 seeking benefits of disability element.

7. In these facts, the Respondent filed O.A. No. 1094/2023 before the Tribunal for the grant of disability element of pension. By the impugned order, the Tribunal after referring to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India and Ors., 2013 (7) SCC 361 and Union of India v. Ram Avtar, 2014 SCC OnLine SC 1761 granted the relief of disability pension to the Respondent.

8. The submissions 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 hon’ble Supreme Court was concerned with the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 [‘Entitlement Rules, 1982’], whereas the case of the Respondent needs to be considered under the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards to Armed Forces Personnel, 2008 [‘Entitlement Rules, 2008’].

8.1 She contends that the Tribunal has overlooked the Entitlement Rules, 2008, which govern attributability and aggravation and no longer permit a blanket presumption in favour of the claimant/officer; and since the RMB has opined the disease to be NANA, the Tribunal could not have presumed a causal connection between the disease and the service. She states in the facts of this case, Respondent was discharged from services on 31.08.2022 and therefore, the Respondent would be governed by Entitlement Rules, 2008. She states that the impugned order incorrectly applies the presumption under the repealed Entitlement Rules, 1982, ignoring the amended regime under Entitlement Rules, 2008. She states that the Entitlement Rules, 2008, have done away with the general presumption to be drawn to ascertain the principle of ‘attributable to or aggravated by military service’.

9. Having perused the reasons recorded in 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 Respondent.

10. In another petition, i.e., W.P.(C) 88/2026 titled Union of India v. 781