Union of India vs. Ex Nk Pramod S - Disability Pension Dispute

Select the following parts of the judgment
| Facts | Issues |
| Petitioner's Arguments | Respondent's Arguments |
| Precedent Analysis | Court's Reasoning |
| Conclusion | |
For entire doc: Unmark Mark View how precedents are cited in this document View precedents: Unmark Mark View only precedents: Unmark Mark Select precedent ... Filter precedents by opinion of the court
| Relied by Party | Accepted by Court |
| Negatively Viewed by Court | No clear sentiment |

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 8, Cited by 0 ] ### Delhi High Court

Union Of India And Ors vs Ex Nk Pramod S on 17 March, 2026

Author: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Bench: V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

$~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](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1712542/) and [227](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1331149/) 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.](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/21603478/), 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.

1.    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
   

2.     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.
   

3.     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.
   

4.     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.1](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/160345694/) and [Union of India v. Ram
                     Avtar2](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/175383524/) has granted the relief of disability pension to the Respondent.
   

5.     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.](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/160345694/) (supra) is totally misplaced as in the said case the
                     Supreme Court was concerned with the Entitlement Rules for Casualty
   
                         2013 (7) SCC 361
   
                      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 the present case was discharged from
service on completion of service and the RMB held the disability to be
NANA, therefore the Respondent would not be entitled for the grant of
disability pension as per the Regulation 53 of 2008 Regulations. The said

                          2014 SCC OnLine SC 1761

                       Regulation 53 reads as under:

"DISABILITY ELEMENT FOR DISABILITY AT THE TIME OF
DISCHARGE /RETIREMENT

1. (a) An individual released/retired/discharged on completion of term of engagement or on completion of service limits or on attaining the prescribed age (irrespective of his period of engagement), if found suffering from a disability attributable to or aggravated by military service and so recorded by Release Medical Board, may be granted disability element in addition to service pension or service gratuity from the date of retirement/discharge, if the accepted degree of disability is assessed at 20 percent or more.

(b) The disability element for 100% disability shall be at the rate laid down
in Regulation 98 (b) below. For disabilities less than 100% but not less
than 20%, the above rates shall be proportionately reduced. Provisions
contained in Regulation 98(c) shall not be applicable for computing
disability element.
..."

6.3. No other grounds have been pressed.

1.    Having perused the reasons recorded in the RMB for opining NANA,
                     we are unable to agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for
                     the Petitioners that the Tribunal committed any error in granting relief to this
                     Respondent.
   

2. In another petition, i.e., W.P.(C) 88/2026 titled Union of India v.
   781466 Ex. SGT Krishna Kumar Dwivedi, decided by this Bench on
   06.01.2026, our attention was drawn to the authoritative judgments of the
   coordinate Benches of this Court passed in W.P.(C) 3545/2025 titled Union
   of India v. Ex. Sub Gawas Anil Madso3 and W.P.(C) 140/2024 titled Union of India vs. Col. Balbir Singh (Retd.) and other connected

                         2025: DHC: 2021-DB
   
                      matters4, which have conclusively held that even under Entitlement Rules,
                     2008 an officer, who suffers from a disease at the time of his release and
                     applies for disability pension within 15 years from release of service, is
                     ordinarily entitled to disability pension and he does not have any onus to
                     prove the said entitlement. The judgments emphatically hold that even under
                     the Entitlement Rules, 2008, the onus to prove a causal connection between
                     the disability and military service is not on the officer but on the
                     administration. The judgments hold that the Entitlement Rules, 2008,
                     however, contemplate that in the event the Medical Board concludes that the
                     disease, though contracted during the tenure of military service, was NANA
                     by military service, it would have to give cogent reasons and identify the
                     cause, other than military service, to which the ailment or disability can be
                     attributed. The judgments hold that a bald statement in the report of the
                     Medical Board opining 'Onset in Peace Station' would not be sufficient for
                     the military department to deny the claim of disability pension; and rejected
                     the opinions of the Medical Board. The judgments hold that the burden to
                     prove the disentitlement of pension therefore remains on the military
                     department even under the Entitlement Rules, 2008; and emphasise on the
                     significance of the Medical Board giving specific reasons to justify their
                     opinion for denial of this beneficial provision to the officer.
   

3.    For reference, we also note that the Supreme Court in its recent
                     judgment in the case of [Bijender Singh vs. Union of India5](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/33517656/) has reiterated
                     that it is incumbent upon the Medical Board to furnish reasons for opining
   
                         2025: DHC: 5082-DB
   
                      that a disease is NANA and the burden to prove the same is on the Military
                     Establishment.
   

The reasons to be recorded by the Medical Board has been succinctly
explained by the Supreme Court in another recent decision of Rajumon
T.M. v. Union of India6 to state that merely stating an opinion, such as
'Constitutional Personality Disorder' without giving reasons or causative
factors to support such an opinion, is an unreasoned medical opinion. The
Supreme Court explained that the said opinion of the Medical Board was
merely a conclusion and would not qualify as a reasoned opinion for holding
the disease/disability to be NANA.

1.    In this background of settled law holding that the onus to prove
                     disentitlement remains heavy on military establishment vis-à-vis Entitlement
                     Rules, 2008 and the Medical Board must give cogent reasons for denying
                     attributability and aggravation, we have examined the facts of this case.
   

2.    The Respondent was enrolled in the Indian Army in 25.01.2004 and
                     the disease/disability Primary Hypertension (ICD-i-10) was discovered in
                     the year 2020 [after 16 years of service], while he was serving at peace
                     station and therefore, the disease has indisputably arisen during his military
                     service. As noted above, the Respondent was discharged from service on
                     31.03.2022.
   

3.    The Petitioners have raised the issue of non-entitlement of the
                     disability element of the pension on the ground that the Medical Board has
                     held that the disease is NANA by the military service. The opinion rendered
   
                         2025 SCC OnLine SC 895 at paragraphs 45.1, 46 and 47
   
                      by the RMB is extracted as under: -
   

4.    The Petitioners contend that disease is NANA since the onset of the
                     disease was at a peace area and that there was no stress of the military
                     service.
   

This precise reason in the medical opinion has been specifically
rejected by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Col. Balbir Singh (Retd.)
(supra)7, while granting disability pension to the officer suffering from
Primary Hypertension, and has been held to be an invalid ground for
denying attributability to the military service. The Division Bench in the
said decision after taking note of Regulation 423(a) of the Regulations for
the Medical Services of the Armed Forces, 2010 held that the fact that the
disability occurred in normal peace conditions is immaterial and by itself is
not sufficient to deny disability pension to the officer. The ratio of the said
judgment is squarely applicable in the facts of this case.

2025 SCC OnLine SC 1064 at paragraphs 25, 26, 32 and 36

1.    No other reason/ground has been cited in the RMB report of the
                     Respondent for opining NANA. In fact, the RMB herein categorically
                     records in response to the question no. 2 (a), that the Respondent did not
                     have this disability before entering into service at internal page 8 of RMB8
                     and also to the response of question no. 5 (a) and (b), that the disability is
                     not attributable or aggravated to the officer's own negligence or misconduct.
                     In these facts, since no other causal connection for the disease has been
                     found to exist by the RMB, the claim of disability pension has been wrongly
                     rejected by the Military establishment, and the officer has been rightly held
                     by the Tribunal to be entitled to disability pension. The Respondent is
                     entitled to the disability pension as per Entitlement Rules 2008 and
                     Regulation 53 of the Pension Regulations 2008.
   

2.    Additionally, we note that the impugned order is dated 19.04.2024
                     and the petition has been filed after nearly two years, without any
                     explanation for such a delay. The Petitioner was obliged to comply with the
                     impugned order of the Tribunal within four (4) months with effect from
                     19.04.2024; however, the same has not been complied with till date.
                     Keeping in view that the claim of disability pension is beneficial in nature,
                     the Petitioner ought to have taken steps to file its challenge within a time
                     bound period, and certainly before the period of four (4) months had lapsed.
                     There is no explanation whatsoever for the delay in approaching this Court
                     and presumably the order of Tribunal have also not been complied with. We
                     thus, hold that filing of this petition is also barred by delay and laches.
   

At paragraph nos. 66 to 74

1.    In view of the aforesaid findings, the Petitioners' challenge to the
                     grant of disability element of pension to the Respondent, is without any
                     merits. The Respondent has been rightly held to be entitled to the disability
                     pension under the Entitlement Rules, 2008 by the Tribunal in the impugned
                     order. The Petitioners are directed to comply with the order of the Tribunal
                     without any further delay.
   

2.    We therefore find no merit in this petition; the petition is dismissed.
                     No costs.
   

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J

                                                                            V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
                      MARCH 17, 2026/AJ

                          Page 358 of the paperbook