$~36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 27.03.2026 + W.P.(C) 3979/2026 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Arti Bansal, CGSC versus COL. SUBRAMANIAN RAMESH (RETD.) .....Respondent Through: Mr. O. S. Punia, Adv.

CORAM:

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

CM APPL. 19488/2026

1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 3979/2026 & CM APPL. 19487/2026

3. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 29.11.2023 [‘impugned order’] passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi [‘Tribunal’] in Original Application [‘O.A.’] No. 2652/2022 titled as Col Subramanium Ramesh (Retd) v. Union of India & Ors., whereby 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 retirement from the service, i.e.17.07.2011.

4. The facts giving rise to the present petition are that the Respondent, who was enrolled in the Army Medical Corps [‘AMC’] on 14.11.1981, was prematurely released from service on his own request on 17.07.2011 in LMC, Low medical category SIH1A 1P2 (P) E1.

5. The Release Medical Board [‘RMB’] held on 13.05.2011 assessed the disabilities, i.e., (i) Primary Hypertension at 30% for life and (ii) Diabetes Mellitus Type-2 at 14%, compositely assessed at 40% for life.

The RMB opined that since Primary Hypertension was ‘onset in the peace station’, i.e., Danapur and Diabetes Mellitus Type-2 was due to ‘Metabolic desirable of genetic origin’. Therefore, it held that the aforesaid disabilities are 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 22.12.2011, as the disability was held to be NANA. Thereafter, the Respondent preferred a First Appeal on 26.09.2022, which was returned vide letter dated 07.10.2022, stating that the appeal was filed after a lapse of ten [10] years.

7. Pursuant thereto, the Respondent filed an O.A. 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 [1] ailment, i.e., Primary Hypertension and gave up his claim for the other ailment, Diabetes Mellitus Type-2.

8. Vide 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 Avtar, 2014 SCC OnLine SC 1761 allowed the O.A. and granted the relief of disability pension to the Respondent.

9. 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’].

9.1. 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.

9.2. She states in the facts of this case that the Respondent was prematurely released from services at his own request in the year 2011, and therefore, the Respondent would be governed by the Entitlement Rules, 2008.

9.3. She states that the impugned order incorrectly applies the presumption under the