$~81 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 17.03.2026 + W.P.(C) 3377/2026 CM APPL. 16209-16210/2026 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Kanishk Kharbanda, SPC with Major Kanika Sharma, Army versus EX NK PRAMOD S .....Respondent Through: Mr. Tatsat Shukla and Mr Manish Kumar, Advocates 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 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 19.04.2024 [‘impugned order’] passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi [‘Tribunal’] in Original Application [‘O.A.’] No. 883/2024 titled as NK Pramod S (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.

2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are that the Respondent was discharged from the service on 31.03.2022 in low medical category [‘LMC’] on attaining the age of superannuation

3. The Release Medical Board [‘RMB’] held on 14.03.2022 assessed the disability i.e., Primary Hypertension (ICD-i-10) at 30% for life and opined that since the onset of the disease was at the time when the Respondent was serving at the peace station i.e., in November 2020 in MH Palampur, the aforesaid disability is neither attributable to nor aggravated [‘NANA’] by the military service as per the Para 43 of Chapter VI of GMO 2008.

4. The Respondent’s claim of disability pension was rejected by the Petitioner vide letter dated 14.06.2022, as the disability was held to be NANA. The Respondent’s first appeal challenging the said rejection was rejected on 09.11.2022. The Respondent preferred Second Appeal dated 09.01.2023; however, the outcome of the said appeal is not discernible from the record.

5. Subsequently, Respondent filed an O.A. No. 883/2024 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.

6. The 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’].

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 31.03.2022 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’.

6.2. He states that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact that the Respondent will be governed by the provision and conditions mentioned under Regulation 53 of the Pension Regulations, 2008 [‘2008 Regulation’]. He states that as the Respondent in th