$~74 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 01.04.2026 + W.P.(C) 4187/2026 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Arunima Dwivedi CGSC with Ms. Swati Jhunjhunwala, Ms. Monalisha Pradhan, Advs. Sgt Padam Charan IAF.

versus

684783 EX HFO BRIJ KISHOR TRIPATHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Manoj Kr. Gupta, Ms. Esha Mehrotra and Ms. Devangana Sharma, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J. (ORAL CM APPL. 20450/2026

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

2. The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 4187/2026 & CM APPL. 20449/2026

3. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 11.04.2023 [‘impugned order’] passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi [‘Tribunal’] in Original Application [‘O.A.’] No. 1265 of 2021 titled as (684783) EX HFO Brij Kishor Tripathi v. Union of India and Ors., whereby the Respondent has been granted the benefit of the disability element of pension for Primary Hypertension and Diabetes Mellitus Type-2 compositely assessed, by Release Medical Board [‘RMB’] at 40% rounded off to 50% for life, from the date of his discharge.

4. The facts giving rise to the present petition are that the Respondent, who was enrolled in the Indian Air Force [‘IAF’] on 18.06.1983, was discharged in low medical category [‘LMC’] A4G4 (P) after rendering a total of 37 years of regular service.

5. The RMB held on 01.10.2019 assessed the disabilities, i.e., (i) Primary Hypertension at 30% for life and (ii) Diabetes Mellitus Type-2 at

20%, compositely assessed at 40% for life.

The RMB opined that since Primary Hypertension was ‘onset in the peace station’, i.e., Chhabua and Diabetes Mellitus Type-2 was ‘a metabolic disease’ and the ‘onset of the disease’ in the peace station, i.e., Thane. 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 31.03.2020, as the disability was held to be NANA. Thereafter, the Respondent preferred a First Appeal on 23.10.2020, which was rejected.

7. Pursuant thereto, the Respondent filed O.A. No. 1265 of 2021 before the Tribunal for the grant of disability element of pension.

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 Avtar² allowed the O.A. and granted

the relief of disability pension to the Respondent.

8. 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’].

8.1. 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 diseases to be NANA, the Tribunal could not have presumed a causal connection between the diseases and the service.

8.2. She states in the facts of this case that the Respondent was discharged on 31.08.2020, and therefore, the Respondent would be governed by the Entitlement Rules, 2008.

8.3. 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 general presumption to be drawn