The two judgments are closely connected and, read together, substantially strengthen the case of Armed Forces personnel claiming disability pension where the Medical Board gives a bare or stereotyped “NANA” opinion.
1. Col. Balbir Singh (Retd.) — Delhi High Court, 1 July 2025
This is a batch judgment in which the Delhi High Court considered numerous Union of India writ petitions against AFT orders granting disability pension. The principal case was W.P.(C) 140/2024, Union of India v. Col. Balbir Singh (Retd.). The respondent had developed Type-II Diabetes Mellitus during service, completed his full tenure and retired normally; the RMB assessed 20% disability but said it was neither attributable to nor aggravated by service.
The important law laid down
A. A bare NANA opinion of the RMB is not enough.
The Medical Board cannot simply write: “Neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service” without explaining why.
The Court held that the RMB must undertake a comprehensive, logical and rational analysis of the service and medical records and give well-reasoned findings.
B. “Peace Station” is NOT by itself a ground to reject disability pension
This is probably the most important proposition in Balbir Singh. The Court expressly held that merely because the disease manifested while the person was posted at a peace station, it cannot be concluded that the disease was unrelated to military service. In particular, the Court held that cumulative military stress can contribute to diseases such as Diabetes, Hypertension and IHD. Therefore, an RMB conclusion that: “Disease started in peace area → therefore NANA” is legally unsustainable.
C. The onus remains on the authorities
The Court accepted that the 2008 Entitlement Rules changed the earlier statutory presumptioncontained in Rule 5 of the 1982 Rules. Therefore, one cannot mechanically say: “No disease at entry = automatic presumption of attributability.”
However, this does not mean that the claimant carries the entire burden. The Court specifically held that the RMB must provide specific reasons for rejecting attributability/aggravation, and the onus in this regard remains with the Union of India. This is a very significant distinction.
D. The RMB’s reasons are legally mandatory
The Court relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajumon T.M. v. Union of India, observing that the requirement to give reasons is “crucial, critical, decisive and necessary” and is not a mere formality.
Thus, an RMB report must explain:
- what caused the disease;
- why military service did not contribute to it;
- why military service did not aggravate it;
- what medical/service records were considered; and
- why the contrary material does not establish attributability/aggravation.
E. The Court did NOT remand the matters
The Ld Attorney General argued that, if the RMB reports were defective, the cases should be sent back for fresh medical examination. The Court rejected that course in these cases because the respondents had already been litigating for a long time. Instead, it examined the cases itself and dismissed the Union’s writ petitions, thereby leaving the AFT orders granting disability pension intact.
2. Ex Sub Gawas Anil Madso -Delhi High Court, 27 March 2025
This judgment is even more useful for understanding the underlying legal principle.
The Court examined the entire line of Supreme Court authorities including Dharamvir Singh, Rajbir Singh, Sukhvinder Singh, Angad Singh Titaria, Manjeet Singh, etc.
The central proposition was that a Medical Board cannot defeat a disability-pension claim merely by recording a conclusion without reasons.
The Court specifically held that simply recording that a disability is not attributable to service, without explaining why, demonstrates lack of proper application of mind by the Medical Board.
The critical distinction: 1982 Rules vs 2008 Rules
This is where Gawas Anil Madso becomes particularly important.
Under the old 1982 Entitlement Rules, there was a specific presumption: No disease/disability recorded at entry → person presumed sound → if subsequently discharged on medical grounds, deterioration presumed due to service.
The judgment summarises the principles from Dharamvir Singh accordingly.
But the Court acknowledged that the 2008 Entitlement Rules removed that express presumption.
Therefore Under the 2008 Rules, absence of a disease at entry does not, by itself, create an automatic presumption that the disease is attributable to military service. But the removal of the presumption does not permit the RMB to give a bald NANA opinion.
The Medical Board still has to examine the entire medical and service history and give cogent reasons.
How the two judgments fit together, I would put the combined ratio this way:
The law after Balbir Singh + Gawas Anil Madso is:
1. Disability pension is available where the disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service and the applicable percentage requirements are satisfied.
2. The claimant is not required to establish attributability through an impossible or excessively technical standard.
3. Under the 2008 Rules, there is no automatic presumption of attributability merely because the disease was absent at the time of induction.
4. Nevertheless, the RMB has a positive obligation to investigate and give cogent reasons for concluding that the disease is neither attributable to nor aggravated by service.
5. A stereotyped statement such as “NANA”, without reasons, is legally inadequate.
6. The fact that the disease manifested at a peace station is not sufficient to reject the claim.
7. The RMB must consider the cumulative effect of military service, including service-related stress and working conditions.
8. The benefit of disability pension, being a beneficial pensionary provision, is to be interpreted liberally for deserving personnel.
9. Courts can interfere with an RMB conclusion where it is unsupported by reasons or is based on an irrelevant consideration such as merely the place where the disease manifested.
10. In Balbir Singh, the Delhi High Court went further and held that the defective RMB opinions were insufficient to justify rejection of the disability pension claims and therefore dismissed the Union’s writ petitions.
The real ratio is not that every disease arising during military service is automatically attributable to service; rather, it is that the Defence authorities cannot deny attributability/aggravation through a bald RMB opinion—the RMB must examine the entire factual and medical matrix and give cogent, reasoned findings, and “peace station” alone is not a legally sufficient reason for rejection. This is an important refinement of the traditional Dharamvir Singh principle after the 2008 Entitlement Rules.
About the Author
Wg Cdr Ajit Kakkar (Retd) is a practising advocate. He holds MA LLB, LLM, MDBA (HR) MBA (Sports Management) Dip in international trade law and dip in Intellectual Property Rights, he appears before Supreme Court of India, Delhi High Court, the Central Administrative Tribunal (Principal Bench), the Armed Forces Tribunal (Principal Bench).
Disclaimer: This article is intended for general information and does not constitute legal advice. Rules, office memoranda and case law evolve; readers should obtain advice specific to their facts before acting.