Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Delhi High Court: In an appeal challenging Armed Forces Tribunal’s order which held that the respondent was entitled to disability pension even when the Release Medical Board opined that the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service but is the result of lifestyle disorder, a Division Bench of V. Kameswar Rao* and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ., affirmed the Tribunal’s order of granting disability pension to the respondent and held that a bald statement by the Medical Board that a disability is lifestyle related or not attributable to service, without recording individualised reasons, is insufficient to deny disability pension.
In the instant matter, the respondent was appointed in the Indian Air Force on 28-10-1981 and was discharged from service on 31-03-2019 after rendering 37 years, 5 months and 4 days of service. It was an admitted position that he did not suffer from any disability at the time of his appointment.
A Release Medical Board was conducted on 11-03-2018, which assessed him to be suffering from primary Hypertension @ 30% for life, and CAD Silent ASMI with normal LV function @ 30% for life, with a composite assessment of 50% for life.
The Medical Board recorded that the disabilities were “not attributable to or aggravated by military service” and described them as lifestyle related. The onset of both disabilities occurred on 09-02-2013, while the respondent was posted at Jammu/Udhampur. He had earlier served in a field area from 21-12-1982 to 09-03-1986 at 403 AF Station, Kumbhigram.
By order dated 03-08-2023, the Armed Forces Tribunal partially allowed the respondent’s application and held him entitled to disability pension for Primary Hypertension assessed at 30%, broad-banded to 50% in terms of Union of India v. Ram Avtar, 2014 SCC OnLine SC 1761, with arrears and interest. Aggrieved by the Tribunal’s order, the Union of India filed the present writ petition.
The Court examined the legal position laid down in several binding precedents including Union of India v. Ram Kumar, W.P.(C) 475/2026, decided on 14-01-2026; Union of India v. Balbir Singh, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 7873 and Bijender Singh v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 895, and reiterated that “even under 2008 Entitlement Rules, 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.” The Court emphasised that “the burden to prove the disentitlement therefore remains on the military department even under 2008 Entitlement Rules.”
On facts, the Court noted that the respondent was medically fit at the time of entry into service, onset of disability occurred during service tenure and the Release Medical Board failed to provide any specific or cogent reasons for holding that Primary Hypertension was not attributable to service.
The Court observed that while ascertaining the disability of Hypertension, the Release Medical Board had not given any reasons to support its conclusion that the disability of Primary Hypertension was not relatable to military service. It did not even gave any reasons to relate the disability to lifestyle.
Further, the Court held that “lifestyle varies from individual to individual. Hence, a mere statement that the disease is a lifestyle disorder cannot be a sufficient reason to deny the grant of Disability Pension unless the Medical Board has duly examined and recorded the particulars relevant to the individual concerned.” The Court reiterated that Medical Boards must not adopt a vague or stereotyped approach and must record clear and cogent reasons while discharging the onus placed upon them.
The Court upheld the Tribunal’s order of granting disability pension to the respondent and dismissed the writ petition as being without merit.
[Union of India v. 627281 Ex MWO (HFO) Tejpal Singh, W.P.(C) 749/2026, Decided on 19-01-2026]
*Judgment by Justice V. Kameswar Rao
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Ms. Archana Gaur CGSC, Ms. Riddhima Gaur, Mr. Deepu Kumar, Advocates and Mr. Mritunjay, Mr. Padam, DAV Legal Cell, Air Force, Counsel for the Petitioner