Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 09.07.2025
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr.Nitinjya Chaudhry, SPC
Mr.Rahul Mourya, Advs. Major Anish Muralidhar, Army
Through: None.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 8222/2025 & CM APPL.35965/2025
2. This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs: “a. Issue an appropriate Writ or writ in the nature of Certiorari or directions setting aside the Order dated 20.03.2023 passed by the Ld. Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Original Application No. 1357 of 2022 titled “Sub Govind Singh (Retd) v. Union of India & Ors”; and b. Stay the operation of the Order dated 20.03.2023 passed by the Ld. Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Original Application No. 1357 of 2022 titled “Sub Govind Singh (Retd) v. Union of India & Ors.”
3. Vide Order dated 28.03.2024 passed by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in Original Application No. 1572/2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘O.A.’), titled Hav Bhagwan Singh (Retd.) v. Union of India & Ors., the learned Tribunal held that the respondent is entitled to the disability element of pension at 20% for life, rounded off to 50%, from the date of his discharge, for the disability of Diabetes Mellitus Type-II. The learned Tribunal further directed that the arrears shall be disbursed to the respondent within four months from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the same shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum until the actual date of payment. However, the arrears were restricted to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the O.A. or the date of the respondent’s retirement, whichever is later.
4. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that the respondent was commissioned into the Indian Army on 30.09.2003 and was discharged from service upon completion of his tenure on 31.05.2020. While the respondent was posted at Mathura, he was diagnosed with Diabetes Mellitus Type-II and was recommended to be placed in Low Medical Category P[3] (T-24). However, he completed the full length of his service.
5. At the time of his retirement, since the respondent was placed in Low Medical Category, he was examined by a duly constituted Release Medical Board (RMB). As per the RMB proceedings dated 25.01.2020, the respondent’s disability, namely Diabetes Mellitus Type-II, was assessed at 20% for life and was held to be neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. Consequently, he was held not entitled to the grant of disability pension.
6. The respondent, therefore, filed an initial disability claim, which was adjudicated and rejected by the Competent Authority vide letter dated 10.03.2021. Aggrieved by the said decision, the respondent preferred a First Appeal on 11.09.2021 against the rejection of his disability pension claim. However, the said appeal was returned by the Appellate Committee on 05.10.2021 due to procedural deficiencies. The respondent re-submitted his First Appeal on 31.10.2021, which was subsequently rejected by the Appellate Committee on First Appeals vide letter dated 29.04.2022. Thereafter, the respondent submitted a Second Appeal dated 06.09.2022 before the Second Appellate Committee on Pension, which too was rejected on 27.03.2023.
7. Dissatisfied with the rejection of his claim for disability pension, the respondent filed the aforesaid O.A. before the learned Tribunal.
8. The learned Tribunal, vide the impugned order, allowed the O.A., basing its decision on Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India & Ors., (2013) 7 SCC 316.
9. The petitioners, Union of India, through the present petition, assail the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal and have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court, challenging the same on the ground that the RMB had clearly opined that the respondent’s medical condition was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. According to the petitioners, therefore, the respondent is not entitled to the disability element of pension.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Tribunal erred in allowing the O.A. filed by the respondent merely by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India & Ors., (2013) 7 SCC 316, without appreciating that the RMB had duly assessed the disability of the respondent and found the same to be neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service.
11. The learned counsel further submitted that the rule of ‘presumption’ regarding disability is no longer part of the Entitlement Rules, 2008. It was pointed out that such a presumption existed under Rule 5 of the Entitlement Rules, 1982, which established a general presumption that a member of the Armed Forces is deemed to have been in sound physical and mental health upon entering service, unless any physical disability was noted or recorded at the time of enlistment. Furthermore, if an individual is discharged on medical grounds, it is to be presumed that the deterioration in health occurred due to service conditions.
12. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
13. At the outset, it becomes relevant to note the opinion of the RMB, which is as under: “ PART VII OPINION OF THE MEDICAL BOARD
1. Please endorse diseases/disabilities in chronological order of occurrence Disability Attributable to service (Y/N) Aggravated by service (Y/N)
DETAILED JUSTIFICATION DIABETES MELLITUS TYPE-2 (E11)
NO NO The disability is neither attributable nor aggravated by military service as per para 26 chapter VI of G.M.O.-2008. Note: 1. A detailed justification regarding the board‟s recommendations on the entitlement for each disease/disability must be provided sequentially especially in NANA cases as per enclosed Appendix „A‟.
2. In case of multiple disabilities or inadequate space, do not paste over the opinion, an additional sheet should be attached instead, providing a detailed justification, which is authenticated by the President and all members of the Medical Board.
3. In case the medical board differs in opinion from the previous medical board, a detailed justification explaining the reasons to differ should be brought out clearly.
4. A disability cannot simultaneously be both attributable to or aggravated by military service, only one or neither of which will apply.”
14. Even in Appendix A to the RMB, there is only a vague statement that the disability suffered by the respondent is not related to service. No reason for reaching this conclusion is, however, stated.
15. From the above, it emerges that the RMB has merely stated that the disability is neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, without stating any reasons for the said opinion.
16. At this stage, it becomes relevant to note the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Ex Sub Gawas Anil Madso, 2025:DHC:2021-DB, wherein it was held that the onus remains on the RMB to substantiate its opinion with cogent reasons. The relevant portion reads as under:
17. The same has also been observed by us in the judgment of Union of India & Ors. v. Col Balbir Singh (Retd.), 2025:DHC:5082-DB.
18. In the present case, the RMB has given no reasons for holding that the disability is neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. In view of the above, the learned Tribunal has rightly set aside the findings of the RMB and granted the respondent the disability element of pension. We find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Tribunal.
19. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. The pending application also stands disposed of.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J RENU BHATNAGAR, J JULY 9, 2025/sg/DG