$~98 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 26.02.2026 + W.P.(C) 2718/2026 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Gauri Goburdhun, SPC.

versus HFO MURALI DHAR YADAV .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ramniwas Bansal, Adv., Sgt.

Padam Charan and Sgt. Karani Singh Rathore.

CORAM:

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

CM APPL. 13223/2026 (Exemption)

1. Exemption is allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2. The application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 2718/2026 CM APPL. 13224/2026

3. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 29.07.2024 [‘impugned order’] passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi [‘Tribunal’] in Original Application [‘O.A.’] No. 2120/2023 titled as MWO (HFO) Murali Dhar Yadava (Retd.) v. 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 i.e., 31.01.2014. The arrears have been restricted to three years from the date of the filing of OA

2120/2023.

4. The facts giving rise to the present petition are set out hereinbelow:

5. The Release Medical Board [‘RMB’] held on 01.03.2013 assessed disability i.e., Primary Hypertension 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., in March 2009 at Hyderabad and constitutional in nature, the aforesaid disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated [‘NANA’] by the military service.

6. The Respondent’s claim of disability pension was rejected by the Petitioners vide letter dated 21.08.2013. The appeal was dismissed as time barred. In these facts, the Respondent filed O.A. No. 2120/2023 before the Tribunal for the grant of disability element of pension. 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 has granted the relief of disability pension to the Respondent.

7. 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’].

8. She 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. She states in the facts of this case, Respondent was discharged from services on 31.01.2020 and therefore, the Respondent would be governed by Entitlement Rules, 2008. She 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’.

9. Having perused the reasons recorded in the opinion of the RMB, we are unable to agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the Tribunal committed any error in granting relief to this Respondent.

10. In another petition, i.e., W.P.(C) 88/2026 titled Union of India v. 781466 Ex. SGT Krishna Kumar Dwivedi, decided b