Union of India vs Gp Capt Rajesh Kumar Singh Jadon (Retd) - 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 |
| 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 6, Cited by 0 ] ### Delhi High Court

Union Of India And Ors vs Gp Capt Rajesh Kumar Singh Jadon (Retd) on 23 March, 2026

Author: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Bench: V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

$~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](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1712542/) 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.

1. 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 LMC1 A4G3 (P).
   

2. 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.

1. 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.
   

2. 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.
   

3. By the impugned order, the Tribunal after referring to the judgments
                    of the Supreme Court in [Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India and Ors.2](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/160345694/) and [Union of India v. Ram Avtar3](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/175383524/) allowed the O.A. and granted the relief
                    of disability pension to the Respondent.
   

4. 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.
   

Low medical category

                       2013 (7) [SCC 361

                       2014 SCC OnLine SC 1761

                      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
                     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 general presumption to be drawn to ascertain the
principle of 'attributable to or aggravated by military service'.

1. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
                    record. Since the Respondent was discharged from service on 31.07.2021,
                    his claim would be governed with the Entitlement Rules 2008.
   

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 Madso4 and W.P.(C) 140/2024 titled [Union of India vs. Col](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/56768737/). Balbir Singh (Retd.) and other connected
                    matters5, 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 said 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 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 said
                    judgments hold that a bald statement in the report of the Medical Board
                    opining 'onset in peace station' or 'lifestyle disorder' would not be sufficient
                    for the military department to deny the claim of disability pension; and
                    rejected the opinions of the Medical Board. The said 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.   On the issue of establishing causal connection of the disease with
                    factors other than military service, we also note that the Supreme Court in
   
                        2025: DHC: 2021-DB
   
                        2025: DHC: 5082-DB
   
                     its recent judgment in the case of [Bijender Singh vs. Union of India6](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/33517656/) has
                    reiterated that it is incumbent upon the Medical Board to furnish reasons for
                    opining that a disease is NANA and the burden to prove the causal
                    connection (as other than military service) is on the Military Establishment.
   

The character of 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 India7. The Supreme Court held 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 and thus invalid. 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 on military establishment even vis-à-vis Entitlement
                    Rules, 2008 regime and the Medical Board must give cogent reasons for
                    denying attributability and aggravation of the disease, we have examined the
                    facts of this case.
   

2.   The Respondent was enrolled in the IAF on 12.09.1988 and the
                    disease Primary Hypertension (Old) Z09 was discovered in the year 2001
                    [after 13 years of service], while he was serving and therefore, the disease
                    has indisputably arisen during his military service.
   

3.   The Petitioners have raised the issue of non-entitlement of the
                    disability element of the pension, on the ground that RMB has held that the
   
                        2025 SCC OnLine SC 895 at paragraphs 45.1, 46 and 47
   
                        2025 SCC OnLine SC 1064 at paragraphs 25, 26, 32 and 36
   
                     disease is NANA by the military service. The opinion rendered by the RMB
                    is extracted as under: -
   

The RMB has classified the disease as NANA, on the ground that it is
a lifestyle-related disorder, its onset occurred in a peace area, and it was not
attributable to any stress or exigency of military service.
14. These very reasons have been specifically rejected by the coordinate
Bench of this Court in Col. Balbir Singh (Retd.) (supra)8 in the context of
Entitlement Rules, 2008 while similarly granting disability pension to the
officer suffering therein from Primary Hypertension. The said reasons have
been held to be invalid grounds 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 ground 'onset in peace station' is thus, an invalid ground and

                         At paragraph nos. 66 to 74

                      cannot be relied upon by the petitioner to justify NANA.

The Division Bench in Col. Balbir Singh (Retd.) (supra)9 also held
that a mere statement by the RMB that a disease is a 'lifestyle disorder'
cannot be a sufficient reason to deny the grant of disability pension and
accordingly, rejected the stand of the authorities opining NANA.

We note that no causative factors have been enlisted in the report
dated 12.02.2021 by the RMB for concluding that the disease is a 'lifestyle
disorder'. In fact, the RMB herein categorically records in response to the
question no. 2 (a) and (b) at internal page 8, that the disability is not
attributable or aggravated to the officer's own negligence or misconduct.
Thus, conclusion in the RMB that the disease is a 'lifestyle disorder' is
therefore contradictory and bereft of reasons, required from the Medical
Board.

1. No other ground has been cited in the RMB report of the Respondent for opining NANA.

In these facts, since no other causal connection has been found to
exist by the RMB, for the disease, we agree with the Tribunal that the claim
of disability pension has been wrongly rejected by the Military
establishment, and the officer has been rightly held entitled to disability
pension as it is attributable to/or aggravated by the military services.

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.

At paragraph no. 71

1. Additionally, we note that the impugned order is dated 05.01.2024
   and the petition has been filed after more than 2 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 and it appears from
   the record that the Petitioner has not complied with the said order. The
   Petitioners ought to have approached this Court immediately and cannot
   elect to sleep over compliance of the impugned order of the Tribunal. Such
   conduct of the Petitioners show abject disregard for the legal process. We
   hold that filing of this petition is also grossly barred by delay and laches, and
   ought to be dismissed on this ground alone. Nevertheless, we have decided
   the petition on merits to avoid any further delay by the Petitioners in
   complying with the impugned order.

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 23, 2026/AJ