$~143 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 22.01.2026 + W.P.(C) 559/2026, CM APPL. 2757/2026 UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

.....Petitioners Through: Mr. Brijesh Kumar Tamber, CGSC, Ms. Arani Mukherjee and Mr. Vinay Singh Bist, Advs.

versus

711829 EX SGT RAJKUMAR BABURAO NANAWARE .....Respondent Through: None.

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 challenges the order dated 13.07.2023 (‘impugned order’) passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (‘Tribunal’) in Original Application (O.A.) 19/2020 titled ‘711829 Ex SGT Rajkumar Baburao Nanaware v. Union of India and Ors.’, whereby the Tribunal has held that the respondent is entitled to disability element of pension in respect of disability of Right Vestibular Schwannoma GKS at 40% for life rounded off to 50%

for life from the date of discharge, i.e., 30.04.2017.

2. The facts to be noted are that the respondent was enrolled into the Indian Air Force on 28.04.1994 and was discharged from the services on

30.04.2017. The Release Medical Board (‘RMB’) proceedings were held on 19.07.2016, wherein the Medical Board assessed the respondent’s disability of Right Vestibular Schwannoma GKS at 40% for life and composite disablement for all disabilities was assessed 40% for life. It was assessed that the aforesaid disease was neither attributable nor aggravated (‘NANA’) by military service. It was further opined that the said disease is idiopathic in nature.

3. The respondent’s claim for disability element of pension was rejected by the petitioners vide letter dated 03.01.2017, on the basis of the said RMB proceedings and the same was communicated to the respondent vide letter dated 10.01.2017. Subsequently, the respondent preferred a First Appeal challenging the said rejection letter; however, the said appeal was also rejected. Therefore, the respondent approached the Tribunal by way of filing O.A. 19/2020, praying for the grant of disability element of pension.

4. By the impugned order dated 13.07.2023, the Tribunal allowed the respondent’s claim and referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India and Ors., 2013 (7) SCC 361 for granting the relief as claimed by the respondent herein.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners 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’), 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’).

The petitioners contend that the Tribunal has overlooked the 2008 Entitlement Rules, which govern attributability and aggravation, and no longer permit a blanket presumption in favour of the claimant/officer. He states in the facts of this case that the respondent was discharged on 30.04.2017, and therefore, the respondent would be governed by the 2008 Entitlement Rules. He states that the impugned order incorrectly applies the presumption under the repealed 1982 Entitlement Rules, ignoring the amended regime under the 2008 Entitlement Rules. He states that the 2008 Entitlement Rules have done away with the general presumption to be drawn to ascertain the principle of ‘attributable to or aggravated by military service’ in favour of the officer.

5.1. It is contended that the Tribunal has also failed to appreciate that there cannot be a universal yardstick for adopting presumption or deemed attributability in all cases, wherein the disease has arisen during service, which is diagnosed by a medical authority at the time of release or retirement. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgme