$~196 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 30.03.2026 + W.P.(C) 4126/2026 CM APPL. 20137-20140/2026 UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Puja S. Kalra, CGSC Major Kanika Sharma, Army versus LT COL AJAY KUMAR 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. 20139-20140/2026 (exemption)

1. Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

2. The applications are disposed of.

W.P.(C) 4126/2026

3. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 15.10.2024 [‘impugned order’] passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi [‘Tribunal’] in Original Application [‘O.A.’] No. 3998/2023 titled as Lt. Col Ajay Kumar (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% 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 25.02.2023 on completion of contractual tenure.

5. The Release Medical Board [‘RMB’] held on 19.12.2022 assessed the disability i.e., Primary Hypertension at 30% for life and opined that the disability was aggravated by military service due to stress and strain in Fd/CI Ops areas and then forwarded the case to competent authority for statutory adjudication. The competent authority, thereafter, held that the disability is Neither Attributable Nor Aggravated [‘NANA’] by the military service. Respondent’s claim of disability pension was rejected on

03.03.2023, as the disability was held to be NANA.

6. The Respondent preferred First Appeal which was also rejected vide letter dated 25.09.2023.

7. Subsequently, Respondent filed an O.A. No. 3998 of 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 Avtar, 2014 SCC OnLine SC 1761 has granted the relief of disability pension to the Respondent.

8. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioners is that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the decision of Appellate Committee on First Appeals [‘ACFA’] which has held that the disability of Primary Hypertension is NANA as it does not fulfil the conditions laid down

as per Rule 6, 10 & 11 of the Entitlement Rules, 2008 read in conjunction with Para 43, Chap VI, GMO 2002, amended 2008.

8.1 She states that the competent authority has determined the disease of Primary Hypertension to be a metabolic disorder with a strong genetic and constitutional etiology. While the onset of the disease occurred during the Respondent’s posting in a field area (North Sikkim), the Competent Authority, after a detailed examination of the medical dossier, determined that the disease was constitutional in origin and not directly caused by service – related stress.

8.2 She submits that mere presence of the officer in a field area, at the time of detection does not automatically establish attributability.

8.3 She states that the Tribunal has erred in restoring the RMB’s finding of aggravation solely on generalized notions of stress, ignoring the Competent Authority’s specific determination that the disease was constitutional in nature.

8.4 She submits 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 presumption of attributability is applicable to cases of invalidation. In the present case, the Respondent completed his full contractual tenure and was released. Therefore, the burden of proof lays on the Respondent to establish a causal link between service conditions and the ons