$~77 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 23.03.2026 + W.P.(C) 3690/2026 CM APPL. 17969/2026 CM APPL. 17970/2026 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Dr. Monika Arora, CGSC, Mr.

Subhrodeep Saha, Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Ms. Anamika and Mr.

Abhinav Verma, Advocates versus GP CAPT RAJESH KUMAR SINGH JADON (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

1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 05.01.2024 [‘impugned order’] passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi [‘Tribunal’] in Original Application [‘O.A.’] No. 2276 of 2022 titled as GP Capt Rajesh Kumar Singh Jadon (Retd.) v. Union of India & Ors., wherein the Respondent has been granted the benefit of the disability element of pension for Primary Hypertension (Old) Z09 assessed at 30%, rounded off to 50% for life, from the date of his retirement from the service.

2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are that the Respondent who was enrolled in the Indian Air Force [‘IAF’] on 12.09.1988, was discharged from service on 31.07.2021 in LMC, Low medical category A4G3 (P).

3. The Release Medical Board [‘RMB’] held on 12.02.2021 assessed the disabilities i.e., (i) Primary Hypertension (Old) Z09 at 30% for life and (ii) Type II DM (Old) Z09 at 20% for life, compositely assessed at 40% for life.

RMB opined that since the diseases were caused due to lifestyle disorder and the onset of the diseases were at a time when the Respondent was serving at the peace station, i.e., in Kanpur, the aforesaid disabilities are neither attributable to nor aggravated [‘NANA’] by the military service, as per the Para 43 of GMO 2008 for the disease of Primary Hypertension, and as per Para 26 of GMO 2008 for the disease of Type II DM (Old) Z09.

4. The Respondent’s claim of disability pension was rejected by the Petitioner vide letter dated 21.07.2022, as the disability was held to be NANA.

5. The Respondent filed an O.A. No. 2276 of 2022 before the Tribunal for the grant of disability element of pension. Pertinently, in the proceedings before the Tribunal, the Respondent claimed for disability element of pension qua one ailment, i.e., Primary Hypertension (Old) Z09 and gave up his claim for the other ailment Type II DM (Old) Z09.

6. By the impugned order, the Tribunal after referring to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India and Ors. and Union of India v. Ram Avtar, 2014 SCC OnLine SC 1761 allowed the O.A. and granted the relief of disability pension to the Respondent.

7. 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.

2 2013 (7) SCC 361

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’].

7.1. 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 in the year 2021 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. She states that the Entitlement Rules, 2008, have done away with the