$~29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 23.01.2026 + W.P.(C) 1000/2026 CM APPL. 4864/2026 CM APPL. 4865/2026 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Arti Bansal, CGSC UOI with Ms.

Shruti Goel Advocate versus (624717) EX HFL KSHETRA MOHAN SEN .....Respondent Through: Mr. Baljeet Singh, Mr. Deepika Sheoran and Mr. Abhishek Gahlyan, Advs.

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 17.08.2023 (‘impugned order’) passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (‘Tribunal’, for short) in Original Application (‘O.A.’) 123/2020 titled Ex. HFL Kshetra Mohan Sen 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, 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 08.12.1979 and was discharged from the services on

31.07.2019 under the clause ‘on attaining the age of superannuation’. The Release Medical Board (‘RMB’, for short) proceedings were held on 31.08.2018, wherein the Medical Board assessed respondent’s disability of Diabetes Mellitus Type II (Old) at 20% for life. The Medical Board opined that since the onset of the disease was at the time, when the respondent was serving at a peace station in September, 2016; and since there was no delay in diagnosis; as well as there is no close time association with stress and strain of service; and hence, the aforesaid disability is neither attributable nor aggravated (‘NANA’, for short) by military service.

3. The respondent’s claim for disability pension was rejected by the petitioners vide letter dated 11.02.2019 and the same was communicated to the respondent vide letter dated 24.04.2019. The first appeal filed by the respondent was also rejected by the concerned authority on 12.12.2019. Thereafter, the respondent approached the Tribunal by way of filing O.A.

123/2020, 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. The respondent further claimed that no note of any disability was recorded in the service documents of the respondent at the time of the entry into the service. 4. By impugned order dated 17.08.2023, 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. She states that in the facts of this case, respondent was discharged on 31.07.2019 and therefore, the respondent would be governed by 2008 Entitlement Rules. She states that the impug