Union of India vs Gp Capt Sk Singh (Retd.) - Disability Pension Dispute

## 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 7, Cited by 0 ] ### Delhi High Court

Union Of India & Ors vs 20119 Gp Capt Sk Singh (Retd.) on 19 March, 2026

Author: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Bench: V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

$~115
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                      %                                             Date of Decision : 19.03.2026
                      +       W.P.(C) 3568/2026 CM APPL. 17311/2026 CM APPL. 17312/2026

                              UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
                                                                                 .....Petitioner
                                                 Through:    Mr. Shashank Dixit, CGSC, Mr.
                                                             Kunal Raj, Adv.

                                                 versus

                              20119 GP CAPT SK SINGH (RETD.)               .....Respondent
                                             Through: Appearance not given
                      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 20.12.2024 ['impugned order'] passed by the
                      Armed Forces Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi ['Tribunal'] in Original
                      Application ['O.A.'] No. 346/2019 titled as GP CAPT S.K. Singh (Retd.)
                      v. Union of India & Ors., wherein the Respondent has been granted the
                      benefit of the disability element of pension for the disability 'Moderately
                      Severe Conductive Hearing Loss (RT) Ear' assessed at 20% for life,
                      rounded off to 50% for life, from the date of his discharge from the service.
                      The Tribunal has limited the arrears for the period of three (3) years prior to
                      the institution of the O.A.

1.  The facts giving rise to the present petition are that the Respondent Signature Not Verified Signed By:MAHIMA          W.P.(C) 3568/2026                                               Page 1 of 9 SHARMA Signing Date:25.03.2026 11:48 who was commissioned in the Indian Air Force ('IAF') on 21.07.1989, took
                     premature retirement from service on 31.07.2012 in Low Medical Category
                     ('LMC').
   

2.  The Release Medical Board ['RMB'] held on 15.04.2013 assessed the
                     disability i.e., 'Moderately Severe Conductive Hearing Loss (RT) Ear' at
                     20% for life as neither attributable to nor aggravated ['NANA'] by the
                     military service. The reasons for holding NANA are not ex-facie evident
                     from the report dated 15.04.2013. However, the impugned order1 records the
                     submission of the Petitioner to the effect that since the onset of the disease
                     was at the time when the Respondent was serving at the peace station, the
                     aforesaid disability is NANA.
   

3.  The Respondent's claim of disability pension was rejected by the
                     Petitioner vide letter dated 14.06.2013 relying upon the report of the RMB.
                     The Respondent's first appeal dated 13.11.2018 challenging the said
                     rejection was rejected by the Petitioners vide letter dated 28.12.2018 stating
                     the reasons that firstly, the disability is NANA and secondly, the appeal had
                     not been preferred within the prescribed time limit i.e., after 6 years from
                     rejection of the initial claim.
   

4.  In these facts, Respondent filed an O.A. No. 346 of 2019 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.2](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/160345694/) and [Union of India v. Ram
                     Avtar3](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/175383524/) has granted the relief of disability pension.
   

5.  The submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioners is that 1 At paragraph no. 10 of the impugned order 2 2013 (7) SCC 361 3 2014 SCC OnLine SC 1761 Signature Not Verified Signed By:MAHIMA          W.P.(C) 3568/2026                                               Page 2 of 9 SHARMA Signing Date:25.03.2026 11:48 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
                     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.
6.2 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'.
6.3 He states in the facts of this case, Respondent took premature
retirement from service on 31.07.2012 and therefore, the Respondent would
be governed by Entitlement Rules, 2008.

1. In the facts of this case, since the Respondent took retirement from service on 31.07.2012, the Respondent's claim for disability pension would indeed be governed by the Entitlement Rules, 2008.

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 Signature Not Verified Signed By:MAHIMA W.P.(C) 3568/2026 Page 3 of 9 SHARMA Signing Date:25.03.2026 11:48 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. 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 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.

1. On the issue of establishing causal connection of the disease with factors other than military service, we note that the Supreme Court in its 4 2025: DHC: 2021-DB Signature Not Verified Signed By:MAHIMA W.P.(C) 3568/2026 Page 4 of 9 SHARMA Signing Date:25.03.2026 11:48 recent judgment in the case of Bijender Singh vs. Union of India6 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 vis-à-vis Entitlement
                     Rules, 2008 and the Medical Board must give cogent reasons for denying
                     attributability and aggravation of the disease to military service, we have
                     examined the facts of this case.
   

2. The Respondent who was commissioned in the IAF on 21.07.1989
                     was dignosed with the disease/disability Moderately Severe Conductive
                     Hearing Loss (RT) Ear in the year 2010 [after 21 years of service], while he
                     was serving at peace station and therefore, the disease has indisputably
                     arisen during his military service.
   

3. The Petitioners have raised the issue of non-entitlement of the 5 2025: DHC: 5082-DB 6 2025 SCC OnLine SC 895 at paragraphs 45.1, 46 and 47 7 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1064 at paragraphs 25, 26, 32 and 36 Signature Not Verified Signed By:MAHIMA          W.P.(C) 3568/2026                                               Page 5 of 9 SHARMA Signing Date:25.03.2026 11:48 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
                     by the RMB is extracted as under:
   

OPINION OF THE MEDICAL BOARD

1. Casual Relationship of the Disability with Service conditions or otherwise. Disability Attributable to Aggravated Not Reasons/causes/specific service (Y/N) by service Connected conditions and period (Y/N) with service in service (Y/N) MODERATELY NO NO YES Refer initial Med Board SEVERE held on 21 Dec 10 CONDUCTIVE HEARING LOSS (RT) Note. A disability 'Not connected with service' would be neither Attributable nor Aggravated by service( This is in accordance with instructions contained in Guide to Medical Officers (Mil pension)-2002)

                              The Petitioners have not produced the report of the Medical Board
                      held on 21.12.2010.

1. The Tribunal after examining the relevant rules of Entitlement Rules, 2008 as well as Regulation 423 of Regulations for the Medical Services of the Armed Forces, 2010, and para 23 of the Guide to Medical Officers (Military Pensions), 2008 held as under:-

"18. In the instant case, the applicant was a pilot and it is well known
that the working environment in flying branch is very noisy and pilots
are exposed to very high decibels of noise level. The onset of the
disability took place in December 2010 after 21 years and 5 months of
long service. During this long period of service, the applicant would
have been exposed to loud noise being a pilot and having flown
different types of Aircraft viz HPT-32, Iskara, Mig-21, Mig-29,
Dornier and AN-32. Therefore, the said disability of 'Moderately
Severe Conductive Hearing Loss (Rt) Ear' of the applicant is conceded
to be aggravated by military service as per Para 23 of Guide to
Medical Officers (Military Pensions), 2008."
Signature Not Verified Signed By:MAHIMA W.P.(C) 3568/2026 Page 6 of 9 SHARMA Signing Date:25.03.2026 11:48 13. There is no ground in the writ petition challenging the aforesaid
finding of the Tribunal. On the contrary, we find that inapplicable grounds
have been pleaded in the writ petition i.e., ground 'J'.

1. However, the Petitioners contend that disease is NANA since the 'onset of the disease was at a peace area' and that there was no stress or strain of the 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)8, 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 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.

1. No other reason/ground has been cited by the Petitioner for opining NANA. In fact, the RMB herein categorically records in response to the question no. 2, that the Respondent did not have this disability before entering into service at internal page 5 of RMB9 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 (except onset at peace station), the claim of 8 At paragraph nos. 66 to 74 9 Page 81 of the paper book Signature Not Verified Signed By:MAHIMA W.P.(C) 3568/2026 Page 7 of 9 SHARMA Signing Date:25.03.2026 11:48 disability pension has been wrongly rejected by the Military establishment,
and the officer has been rightly held to be entitled to disability pension, by
the Tribunal.

1.    We also note that in exercise of the certiorari jurisdiction of this Court
                     over the decision of the Tribunal, the limited parameters of the jurisdiction
                     are delineated in the judgment of [Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan10](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/484719/).
                     We have examined the impugned order within the said parameters and find
                     no ground to interfere with the impugned order.
   

2.    Additionally, we note that the impugned order is dated 20.12.2024
                     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 three (3) months with effect from
                     20.12.2024; 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 three (3) 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 till
                     date. We thus, hold that filing of this petition is also barred by delay and
                     laches.
   

3.    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 Petitioners are directed to comply with the order of the Tribunal
                     without any further delay.
   

4.    We therefore find no merit in this petition; the petition is dismissed.
   

10 (1963) SSC OnLine SC 24 at paragraph 7 and 8 Signature Not Verified Signed By:MAHIMA W.P.(C) 3568/2026 Page 8 of 9 SHARMA Signing Date:25.03.2026 11:48 Pending application, if any, stands dismissed. No costs.

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J

                                                                        V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
                      MARCH 19, 2026/IB/rhc Signature Not Verified Signed By:MAHIMA          W.P.(C) 3568/2026                                          Page 9 of 9 SHARMA Signing Date:25.03.2026 11:48