Dharambir vs Union of India on 23 October 2026

ORDER

JUSTICE SUDHIR MITTAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

The applicant was discharged on 31.12.2007. Total service rendered by him was 25 years, 01 month and 21 days. He happened to be in a permanent low medical category on account of disability of ‘Non-Insulin- Dependent Diabetes Mellitus (NIDDM)’, the extent of which was assessed to be 20% for life but neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. Claim for grant of disability element was, accordingly, rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that onset of the disability was in the year 2006. The applicant was discharged in December 2007. At that point in time, Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards to the Armed Forces Personnel, 2008 had not been implemented. The Rules in force in the that year were Entitlement Rules for Causality Pensionary Awards, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ER 1982’). According to the said Rules, there was a presumption in favour of the claimant. The presumption was not rebutted by saying that the disability

OA 1833 of 2021 Dharambir Vs. UOI & Ors.

…2/-

was not connected with military Service. Thus, the disability could not have been assessed to be neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. Reliance has been placed upon judgment dated 02.07.2013 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal No.4949 of 2013 [arising out of SLP (C) No.6940 of 2010], Dharamvir Singh Vs. Union of India and Others.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the Original Application has been preferred after a lapse of 14 years. Thus, the applicant does not deserve any relief.

4. Under ER 1982, there exists a presumption in favour of the claimant that disability arising during service is on account of service conditions. It has been so held in Dharamvir Singh (supra). The respondents are entitled to rebut the presumption by giving logical and valid reasons. Merely stating that the disability had no connection with military service does not suffice the requirement of rebuttal of a presumption in law. Thus, the finding of neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service returned by the Release Medical Board (RMB) is quashed.

5. The dispute pertains to grant of disability element which is undoubtedly a pensionary dispute. The cause of action in respect of such disputes is a continuing one and, thus, even though the Original Application has been filed after 14 years, it will not affect the rights of the applicant. The submission in this respect made by learned counsel for the respondents is, accordingly, rejected.

OA 1833 of 2021 Dharambir Vs. UOI & Ors.

…3/-

6. The applicant is held entitled to grant of disability element for the disability of ‘Non-Insulin-Dependent Diabetes Mellitus (NIDDM)@ 20% rounded off to 50% w.e.f. 01.01.2008. Corrigendum Pension Payment Order be issued within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order by the learned counsel for respondents/OIC Legal Cell. Arrears be also paid within the same period failing which they shall become payable with interest @ 6% per annum.

(Lt Gen (Dr) Ranbir Singh)

(Justice Sudhir Mittal) Member (A)

Member (J)

23rd Oct, 2026 ‘b’ REPORTABLE : NO