Union of India and Ors. v. HFO Bhagat Ram Dhiman Retd

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2. The application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 132/2026 & CM APPL. 653/2026

3. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India lays a challenge to the order dated 18.11.2024 (‘impugned order’) passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, PrincipalBench, New Delhi (‘Tribunal’, for short) in O.A. 640/2024 titled HFO Bhagat Ram Dhiman(Retd.) v. Union of India and Others, wherein the respondent has been granted the benefit of the disability element of pension at 30% for the disability of Primary Hypertension, rounded off to 50% for life.

SHARMA 12:13

4. The facts to be noted aretherespondent was enrolled into the Indian Air Force on 10.09.1983 and retired from the service on 31.01.2022. The Release Medical Board (‘RMB,’ for short) proceedings were held on 31.03.2021, wherein the Medical Board opined that the respondent has disability ofPrimary Hypertensionat 30% for life and further assessed that theaforesaid disability was neither attributable nor aggravated by military service.

5. The respondent’s claim for disability pension was rejected by the petitionersandtherefore, therespondent approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. 640/2024 praying for grant of disability element of pension. The respondent’s case before the Tribunal for grant of disability element of pensionfrom thedateofrelease (i.e., 01.02.2022) was on thegroundthat he had developedthediseaseofPrimary Hypertension duringhis serviceand in that sense, the disease is attributable to the military service.

6. By the impugned order dated 18.11.2024, the Tribunal allowed the respondent’s claim and held that the respondent is entitled to disability element of pensionin respect ofdisability ofPrimary Hypertension at 30% rounded off to 50% for life. The Tribunal referred to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India and Ors.1, and Union of India v. Ram Avtar[2] for granting the relief as claimed by the respondent herein.

7. The only submission madeby thelearned counselfor the petitioner is that the reliance placed by the Tribunal on the judgment of Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India and Ors. (supra) is totallymisplaced as in the said

SHARMA 12:13 case) the Supreme Court was concerned with the Entitlement Rules for CasualtyPensionary Awards, 1982 (‘1982 Entitlement Rules’, for short), whereas the case of the respondent need to be considered under the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards to Armed Forces Personnel, 2008 (‘2008 Entitlement Rules’, for short). Learned counsel for the Petitioners contends that the Tribunal has overlooked 2008 Entitlement Rules, which govern attributability/aggravation and the Rules no longer permit a blanket presumption in favour of the claimant. He states in the facts of this case, Respondent was discharged on 31.01.2022 and therefore, the respondent would be governed by 2008 EntitlementRules. Hestates that the impugned order applies thepresumption under the repealed 1982 Entitlement Rules, ignoring the amended regime under 2008 Entitlement Rules.

8. We are unable to agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

9. In 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 Unionof India v. Ex. Sub GawasAnilMadso[3] and W.P.(C) 140/2024 titled Union of India vs. Col. Balbir Singh (Retd.) and other connected matters[4], which have conclusively held that even under 2008 Entitlement Rules, an officer who suffers from a disease at the time of his release and applies for disability pensionwithin15 years from the release, is ordinarily entitled to disability 3 2025: DHC: 2021-DB 4 2025: DHC: 5082-DB SHARMA 12:13 pensionand hedoes not haveonusto prove the said entitlement. The 2008 Entitlement Rules, however, contemplate that in the event the Medical Board concludes that the disease though contracted during the tenure of military service, was not attributableto or aggravated by military service, it would haveto give cogent reasons andidentify thecause, otherthanmilitary service, to which theailment or disability can be attributed. The judgments hold that a bald statement in the report would not be sufficient, for the military departmentfor denyingtheclaim of disabilitypension. The burden to prove the disentitlement therefore remains on the military department even under 2008EntitlementRules and the aforesaid judgments emphasize on the significance of the Medical Board giving specific reasons for denial of this beneficial provision. The judgments hold that the onus to prove a casualconnection between the disability and military service is not on the officer but on the administration.

10. We for benefit also notethattheSupreme Court in its recent opinion in the case of Bijender Singh vs. Union of India and Others[5], has in paragraphs 45.1, 46 and 47, held as under: “45.1. Thus, this Court held that essence of the Rules is that a member of the armed forces is presumed to be in sound physical and mental condition at the time of his entry into the service if there is no note or record to the contrary made at the time of such entry. In the event of subsequent discharge from service on medical ground, any deterioration in health would be presumed to be due to military service. The burden would be on the employer to rebut the presumption that the disability suffered by the member was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. If the Medical Board is of the opinion that the disease suffered by the member could not have been detected at the time of entry into service, the Medical Board has to give reasons for saying so. This Court highlighted that the provision for payment of

SHARMA 12:13 disability pension is a beneficial one which ought to be interpreted liberally. A soldier cannot be asked to prove that the disease was contracted by him on account of military service or was aggravated by the same. The very fact that upon proper physical and other tests, the member was found fit to serve in the army would give rise to a presumption that he was disease free at the time of his entry into service. For the employer to say that such a disease was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, the least that is required to be done is to furnish reasons for taking such a view.

46. Referring back to the impugned order dated 26.02.2016, we find that the Tribunal simply went by the remarks of the Invaliding Medical Board and Re-Survey Medical Boards to hold that since the disability of the appellant was less than 20%, he would not be entitled to the disability element of the disability pension. Tribunal did not examine the issue as to whether the disability was attributable to or aggravated by military service. In the instant case neither has it been mentioned by the Invaliding Medical Board nor by the Re-Survey Medical Boards that the disease for which the appellant was invalided out of service could not be detected at the time of entry into military service. As a matter of fact, the Invaliding Medical Board was quite categorical that no disability of the appellant existed before entering service. As would be evident from the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the law has by now crystalized that if there is no note or report of the Medical Board at the time of entry into service that the member suffered from any particular disease, the presumption would be that the member got afflicted by the said disease because of military service. Therefore the burden of proving that the disease is not attributable to or aggravated by military service rest entirely on the employer. Further, any disease or disability for which a member of the armed forces is invalided out of service would have to be assumed to be above 20% and attract grant of 50% disability pension.

47. Thus having regard to the discussions made above, we are of the considered view that the impugned orders of the Tribunal are wholly unsustainable in law. That being the position, impugned orders dated 22.01.2018 and 26.02.2016 are hereby set aside. Consequently, respondents are directed to grant the disability element of disability pension to the appellant at the rate of 50% with effect from 01.01.1996 onwards for life. The arrears shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum till payment. The above directions shall be carried out by the SHARMA 12:13 respondents within three months from today.” (Emphasis Supplied)