$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 11.02.2026 + W.P.(C) 601/2026 & CM APPL. 2974/2026 CM APPL. 2975/2026 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Dr. B. Ramaswamy, CGSC with Sgt Mritunjay and Sgt Karani Singh Rathore, DAV Legal Cell Airforce versus SGT AMAR LAL RETD. .....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 CM APPL. 2975/2026(for exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2. The application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 601/2026 & CM APPL. 2974/2026(stay)

3. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 06.08.2024 [‘impugned order’] passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi [‘Tribunal’] in Original Application [‘O.A.’] No. 1473/2022 titled as (656746) Sgt Amar Lal (Retd) vs Union Of India & Ors, wherein the Respondent has been granted the benefit of the disability element of pension for Primary Hypertension (Old) assessed at 30% for life, rounded off to 50% for life, from the date of his discharge from the service.

4. The facts giving rise to the present petition are that the Respondent was discharged from the service on 31.03.2016 under the clause ‘on fulfilling the conditions of enrolment’ after rendering a total of 26 years and

20 days of regular service.

5. The Release Medical Board [‘RMB’], held on 06.05.2015, assessed his disabilities, i.e., Primary Hypertension (Old) 10.0 & Z 09.0 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. 5 AFH Jorhat, in June 2011 and was due to the lifestyle disorder, therefore, the aforesaid disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated [‘NANA’] by the military service.

6. The Respondent’s claim of disability pension was rejected and the same was communicated to the Respondent vide letter dated 27.01.2016, stating that as the disability was opined NANA by the service. The Respondent’s first appeal challenging the said rejection by the Appellate Committee of First Appeal (‘AFCA’).

7. The Respondent filed O.A. No. 1473/2022 before the Tribunal for the grant of disability element of pension. By the impugned order, the Tribunal, while 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 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 [‘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’].

9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Tribunal has overlooked the Entitlement Rules, 2008, which governs attributability and aggravation and no longer permit a blanket presumption in favour of the claimant/officer and since the RMB has opined the diseases 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, the Respondent retired on 31.01.2019 and therefore, the Respondent would be governed by the 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’.

10. Having perused the reasons