$~73 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 10.02.2026 + W.P.(C) 836/2026 & CM APPL. 4099/2026 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. N Balraj, SPC, along with Mr.

Aadhar Nautiyal, Ms. Meghna Rao, Ms. Osheen Bhat, Advocates versus WG CDR MAHADASU SURENDRA RETD .....Respondent Through: Ms. Deepika Sheoran, Mr. Baljeet Singh, 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 is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 25.07.2023 [‘impugned order’] passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi [‘Tribunal’] in Original Application [‘O.A.’] No. 1638/2021 titled as Wg. Cdr. Mahadasu Surdendra (Retd) v. Union of India & Ors., wherein the Respondent has been granted the benefit of the disability element of pension for Primary Hypertension assessed at 30%, rounded off to 50% for life, from the date of his discharge from the service i.e., 12.06.2020.

2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are that the Respondent

was discharged from the service on 12.06.2020 as ‘premature separation

from service’.

3. The Release Medical Board [‘RMB’] held on 15.11.2019 assessed the disability i.e., Primary Hypertension at 30% for life. In the detailed justification as per the Appendix A, 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 January 2019 at Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, the aforesaid disabilities were neither attributable to nor aggravated [‘NANA’] by the military service.

4. The Respondent’s claim of disability pension was rejected by the Petitioner vide letter dated 20.04.2021, as the disability was held to be NANA. The Respondent’s first appeal challenging the said rejection was rejected on 05.07.2021.

5. In these facts, the Respondent filed O.A. No. 1638/2021 before the Tribunal for the grant of disability element of pension. It is pertinent to note that in the proceedings before the Tribunal, the Respondent claimed for disability element of pension qua one ailment, i.e., Primary Hypertension and gave up his claim for the other ailment i.e. Primary Hypothyroidism. 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 Avtar² granted the relief of disability pension to the Respondent.

6. The only submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioners is that the reliance placed by the Tribunal on the judgment of Dharamvir

2 2014 SCC OnLine SC 1761

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’].

6.1. He 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. He states in the facts of this case, Respondent was discharged from services on 12.06.2020 and therefore, the Respondent would be governed by Entitlement Rules, 2008. He states that the impugned order incorrectly applies the presumption under the repealed Entitlement Rules, 1982, ignoring the amended regime under Entitlement Rules, 2008. He 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’.

7. Having perused the reasons recorded in