$~22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 23.01.2026 + W.P.(C) 967/2026 CM APPL. 4672/2026 CM APPL. 4673/2026 CM APPL. 4674/2026 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vijay Joshi, Advocate, CGSC and Mr. Shubham Chaturvedi, Advocate versus

671657-EX MWO TRIBHUWAN SINGH .....Respondent Through:

CORAM:

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

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India lays the challenge to the order dated 23.08.2023 (‘impugned order’) passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (‘Tribunal’, for short) in Original Application (‘O.A.’) 1252/2020 titled Ex. MWO Tri Bhuwan Singh v. Union of India and Others, wherein the respondent has been granted the benefit of the disability element of pension for Diabetes Mellitus Type II (Old) at 20% for life and Primary Hypertension (old) at 30% for life, compositely assessed at 44% for life, rounded off to 50% for life from the date of discharge i.e., 31.07.2019.

2. The facts in the present case are that the respondent was enrolled into the Indian Air Force on 27.06.1980 and was discharged from the services on 31.07.2019. The Release Medical Board (‘RMB’, for short) proceedings were held on 16.10.2018, wherein the Medical Board assessed respondent’s disability of (i) Diabetes Mellitus Type II (Old) at 20% for life, (ii) Primary Hypertension (old) at 30% for life and (iii) RBBB (Old) at 15-19% for life, compositely assessed at 60% for life. The Medical Board opined that since the onset of the diseases was at the time, when the respondent was serving at a peace station, the aforesaid disabilities were neither attributable nor aggravated (‘NANA’) by military service.

3. The respondent’s claim for disability pension was rejected by the petitioners vide letter dated 31.05.2019 and the same was communicated to the respondent vide letter dated 04.10.2019. The appeal filed by the respondent challenging the said rejection was also rejected by the concerned authority on 07.08.2020. Thereafter, the respondent approached the Tribunal by way of filing O.A. 1252/2020, thereby praying for grant of disability element of pension.

The respondent claimed before the Tribunal that he has served in the Indian Air Force at various places in different environmental and service conditions in his prolonged service, thereby, any disability at the time of his service is deemed to be attributable to or aggravated by military service.

4. By impugned order dated 23.08.2023, the Tribunal allowed the respondent’s claim. The Tribunal referred to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India and Ors., 2013 (7) SCC 361, Union of India v.

Ram Avtar, 2014 SCC OnLine SC 1761 and other judgments for granting the relief as claimed by the respondent herein.

5. The only submission 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 Supreme Court was concerned with the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 (‘1982 Entitlement Rules’, for short), whereas the case of the respondent needs to be considered under the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards to Armed Forces Personnel, 2008 (‘2008 Entitlement Rules’, for short).

The petitioners contend that the Tribunal has overlooked 2008 Entitlement Rules, which govern attributability and aggravation and no longer permit a blanket presumption in favour of the claimant. He states in the facts of this case, respondent was discharged on 31.07.2019 and therefore, the respondent would be governed by 2008 Entitlement Rules. He states that the impugned order incorrectly applies the presumption under the repealed 1982 Entitlement Rules, ignoring the amended regime under 2008 Entitlement Rules. He states that 2008 Entitlement Rules have