Blog / Armed Forces & AFT

Disability Pension Rejected as NANA: What You Can Do

Armed Forces & AFT · By Adv. J. V. Bhosale · 10 November 2026

The Release Medical Board has written that your illness is "neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service" (NANA). You gave years to the service, the condition showed itself while you were in uniform, and still the disability pension was refused. The first appeal was rejected. So was the second. It is natural to wonder whether anything is left to try.

There may still be options. The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) can examine a NANA finding, and the Supreme Court has said how that finding must be tested. The numbers also explain why so many people feel they have hit a wall: in a judgment of 15 September 2026 the Supreme Court recorded RTI data showing that of 2,997 first appeals about 2,855 were rejected and only 142 accepted, and of 456 second appeals 439 were rejected and 17 accepted [1]. On those figures, few departmental appeals succeed. The Tribunal is the forum that can re-examine them.

The short answer A NANA entry is a medical opinion, not a final verdict. The Supreme Court has held that a Medical Board must give reasons for its opinion [3], that a condition not noted at entry into service is presumed to have arisen later [4][6], and that the burden of proving a disease is not connected to service rests on the employer [2][5]. Two cautions apply. The Board's opinion still carries "due weight" and the Tribunal must examine its reasons in detail [1]. And the Supreme Court has said that where a claimant approaches the relevant forum after fifteen years, the burden shifts to the claimant [1]; Rule 7 of the 2008 Rules places the onus on the claimant where the claim is preferred after 15 years, by which time the service documents are destroyed after the prescribed retention period [9]. Which set of Entitlement Rules applies depends on when you were discharged [9][10].

What the rule says

The forum. Under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, "service matters" include pension and other retirement benefits, and a person aggrieved by such an order may apply to the Tribunal [7]. As a general rule the applicant must first use the departmental remedies (the first and second appeal), and the application must ordinarily be made within six months of the final order, with a power to condone delay for "sufficient cause" [7]. Detailed steps are in the AFT guide on disability pension.

Three generations of Entitlement Rules. The rules that decide "attributable or aggravated" have been issued in three versions: the 1982 Rules, the 2008 Rules and the 2023 Rules. The 2023 Rules were issued by a Ministry of Defence letter dated 21.09.2023, apply from 21 September 2023, and supersede the earlier rules [10]. Rule 7 of the 2008 Rules says that ordinarily the claimant "will not be called upon to prove the condition of entitlement", but "where the claim is preferred after 15 years of discharge/retirement/invalidment/release by which time the service documents of the claimant are destroyed after the prescribed retention period, the onus to prove the entitlement would lie on the claimant" [9].

Both the 2008 and the 2023 Rules also carry a warning that works against the soldier: the 2023 Rules state that

"The mere fact that a disease has manifested during military service does not per se establish attributability to or aggravation by military service." (Entitlement Rules 2023, Rule 7(b)) [10]

At the same time, the 2023 Rules provide that an impairment "shall be conceded as aggravated" if its onset is hastened or its course worsened by specific conditions of service such as extreme climate, fields, operations or high altitude, but not where a pre-existing condition has improved with treatment [10]. They also say Medical Boards confine themselves to evaluating the condition, and "shall not opine on the element of 'entitlement'", which is for the competent and appellate authorities [10]. First and second appeals are each to be filed within six months of the sanction letter; an appeal filed later but within five years can be considered only on a time-bar sanction, and only from the date of the delayed appeal [10].

What the courts have said

1. Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India, (2013) 7 SCC 316, Supreme Court, 2 July 2013. The Court summarised the working principles: a person is presumed to have been in sound condition at entry if nothing was noted; if the person is later discharged on medical grounds, any deterioration in health is presumed to be due to service; the onus is not on the claimant; the benefit of reasonable doubt goes to the claimant; and a Medical Board that says the disease could not have been detected at entry must give reasons (para 28). A pension sanctioning authority cannot mechanically accept a Board opinion that has no reasons (para 32) [4].

2. Union of India v. Rajbir Singh, (2015) 12 SCC 264, Supreme Court, 13 February 2015. The Court approved Dharamvir and said the employer must affirmatively prove that the disease had nothing to do with service (para 15) [5].

3. Sukhvinder Singh v. Union of India, Civil Appeal 5605/2010, Supreme Court, 25 June 2014. A disability that was not recorded at recruitment is presumed to have been caused later and, unless proved otherwise, to be a consequence of service. The Court refused to give a "premium" to the Recruitment Medical Board for its own negligence (para 9) [6].

4. Bijender Singh v. Union of India, 2025 INSC 549, Supreme Court, 23 April 2025. The soldier had been invalided out in 1989 with a seizure disorder; the Board said "not attributable" and assessed it below 20%. The Court held that the Tribunal had wrongly asked only whether the disability was below 20%, instead of asking whether it was attributable or aggravated, and that neither the Invaliding Board nor the Re-Survey Boards had said the disease could not have been detected at entry. On the burden, the Court said

"the burden of proving that the disease is not attributable to or aggravated by military service rest entirely on the employer." (para 46) [2]

It also held that a disability for which a person is invalided out must be assumed to be above 20%. Relief was 50% disability element from 01.01.1996 for life with 6% interest (paras 46-47) [2].

5. Rajumon T.M. v. Union of India, 2025 INSC 644, Supreme Court, 7 May 2025. A Medical Board opinion "devoid of reasons" cannot found the denial of disability pension; reasons are "crucial, critical, decisive", and a bare conclusion is not reasons (paras 20, 24-26). The Court called the provision beneficial and asked for a liberal view (paras 30-31) [3].

6. Union of India v. Col. N.C. Isaac (Retd.), 2026 INSC 993, Supreme Court, 15 September 2026. This is the most recent and the most important to read carefully. It dealt with a batch of about 271 Union appeals against orders that had granted disability element to personnel who retired on completing service, where the Board had said NANA. The Court dismissed the appeals on delay and on merits (para 39(i)). It held that the 2008 Rules substantially reproduce the earlier scheme on causal connection, onus and attributability, subject to the 15-year proviso (paras 30.7, 33-35), and that the onus of proving non-attributability continues to lie on the employer (paras 30.3, 30.7). But it also said the Medical Board's opinion "deserves to be given due weight", should not be replaced merely because another view is possible, and that in pending matters the Tribunal must scrutinise the opinion and reasons in detail (para 39(ii)). Where a claimant "approaches the relevant forum after a period of fifteen years", the Court said "the principle in Rule 7 of the Entitlement Rules 2008 applies and the burden shifts" (para 39(iii)). The Court noted that where claims were allowed "routinely" on the presumption without examining evidence, there is a case for revisiting them (para 35), and that a 2015 Raksha Mantri Committee recommendation to withdraw such appeals "has not been faithfully implemented" (para 37). The controversy was confined to retirement on completion of service (para 4) [1].

How the situations differ

A worked example (hypothetical)

This is an invented illustration, not a real case. Havildar R retires after 20 years on completion of engagement. His Release Medical Board records hypertension at 30% but says "neither attributable nor aggravated", giving a one-line remark that it is a "lifestyle disease". His entry medical record shows no note of high blood pressure. His last eight years were in field and high-altitude postings. His first and second appeals are rejected within the time allowed.

On the sources above, the questions that would matter are these. Does the Board's remark give real reasons, or only a conclusion [3]? Was anything noted at entry, because if not, the presumption of a sound condition at entry applies [4][6]? Do the service postings fit the "aggravation" language of the 2023 Rules or, for an earlier discharge, the corresponding principles [10]? And since R claimed well within 15 years, the onus shift does not arise [9]. Even so, after Isaac the Tribunal will look at the Board's reasons and the evidence of service conditions closely, so the postings and medical history need to be documented [1]. Nothing here predicts how any Bench would decide.

Step by step: what to do

1. Collect the papers. Pension Payment Order, discharge book, the Release or Invaliding Medical Board proceedings with their forms, the entry medical record, medical documents during service, and both appeal orders. The Board forms and their parts are discussed in Rajumon (paras 26-27) [3].
2. Read the Board's reasons. Is there any explanation for NANA, or only a conclusion? Is there a statement that the disease could not have been detected at entry [3][4]?
3. Use both departmental appeals. The 2023 Rules provide a first and a second appeal, each within six months of the sanction letter [10]; the Act expects remedies to be used first [7].
4. Watch limitation. The Tribunal application is ordinarily due within six months of the final order, and delay can be condoned for sufficient cause on an application [7]. If there is no final order within six months of a representation, the remedy is treated as exhausted [7].
5. File the Original Application under section 14 in Form I, at the Bench of posting, of the cause of action or, for retired persons, of ordinary residence, with attested copy of the impugned order and documents [8]. A nominal Tribunal fee applies, with exemption on grounds of indigence [8]. The Union's reply is due within one month of notice [8].
6. Know the next stage. An appeal from the Tribunal to the Supreme Court lies only with leave and within 90 days. Leave is sought from the Tribunal within 30 days of its decision and, if refused, from the Supreme Court within 30 days of the refusal; the Supreme Court can extend time [7].

Common mistakes

• Arguing only that the percentage should be 20% or more, instead of attacking the NANA finding itself [2].
• Not asking for the Board's reasons and the entry medical record [3][4].
• Waiting more than 15 years to claim [1].
• Relying on the presumption alone, without evidence of service conditions such as postings, altitude or stress [1].
• Not checking whether the 1982, 2008 or 2023 Rules apply to the date of discharge [9][10].
• Filing late without a condonation application [7].

What is still unsettled

• No judgment located in the research for this article shows how the 2023 Rules, in force from 21.09.2023, interact with the Dharamvir presumption, and the Isaac judgment does not discuss them [1][10].
• The Court did not strike down the 2008 Rules but remarked on how they came to be issued (paras 22-23, 28), and spoke of them "assuming they otherwise have legal effect" (para 34) [1].
• The 2023 Rules say Boards shall not opine on entitlement; whether a post-2023 NANA remark is itself contrary to that has not been tested in any judgment located [10].
• How strictly the Tribunal must "scrutinise in detail", and which past grants may be revisited under para 35, remain to be worked out [1].
• The judgment describes the 15-year point in different words: a claim "preferred" after 15 years (para 33), approaching "the medical board/court" (para 35) and approaching "the relevant forum" (para 39(iii)). It does not settle precisely which date ends the 15 years [1].

Every case turns on its own facts, dates and records. You can read more on the Armed Forces Tribunal hub or ask Lex Buddy on this site.

Disclaimer: This article is for general education only and is not legal advice or an opinion on any individual case.

Frequently asked questions

Does a NANA finding by the Medical Board end my disability pension claim?

No. It is an opinion that the Tribunal can examine. The Supreme Court has held that a Board opinion without reasons cannot support denial [3], and that the employer bears the burden of showing a disease is not connected to service [2][5]. After the 2026 Isaac judgment the Board's opinion also gets "due weight", so the reasons and evidence matter on both sides [1].

What if no illness was recorded when I joined?

The Supreme Court has said that a disability not recorded at recruitment is presumed to have been caused later and, unless proved otherwise, to be a consequence of service [6]. A Board that says the disease could not have been detected at entry must give reasons [4].

What is the 15-year rule?

Rule 7 of the 2008 Rules says that ordinarily the claimant need not prove entitlement, but "where the claim is preferred after 15 years of discharge/retirement/invalidment/release by which time the service documents of the claimant are destroyed after the prescribed retention period, the onus to prove the entitlement would lie on the claimant" [9]. In Isaac the Supreme Court said that if a claimant approaches the relevant forum after fifteen years, the principle in Rule 7 applies and the burden shifts (para 39(iii)) [1]. The judgment speaks of a claimant who approaches "the relevant forum" after 15 years, but does not settle precisely which date ends the 15 years [1].

My Board assessed my disability below 20%. Is that the end?

Not necessarily. In Bijender Singh the Court said the Tribunal should have asked whether the disease was attributable or aggravated, not only whether it was below 20%, and that a disability for which a person is invalided out is assumed to be above 20% [2]. For personnel who retired on completion of service, a separate rounding-off question arises; see our article on rounding off.

The Union has appealed to the Supreme Court against my AFT order. What then?

An appeal to the Supreme Court needs leave and is subject to time limits that the Court may extend [7]. In Isaac the Court dismissed a batch of about 271 Union appeals, most of them barred by limitation, and recorded that the 2015 recommendation to withdraw such appeals had not been faithfully implemented [1]. See also our article on non-implementation of AFT orders.

Related reading

• Armed Forces Tribunal: sourced guides (hub)
• Disability pension before the AFT
• Broad-banding and rounding off
• Invalidation and discharge
• Limitation and condonation of delay
• How to file an Original Application

Sources

1. Union of India v. Col. N.C. Isaac (Retd.) — 2026 INSC 993, Supreme Court, 15 Sep 2026, SLP(C) 3680/2025 and batch (paras 4, 22-23, 28, 30.3, 30.7, 33-35, 37-39, 41) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/3188903/
2. Bijender Singh v. Union of India — 2025 INSC 549, Supreme Court, 23 Apr 2025, CA 4458-4459/2024 (paras 45.1, 46-47) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/81878404/
3. Rajumon T.M. v. Union of India — 2025 INSC 644, Supreme Court, 7 May 2025, CA 998/2025 (paras 20-21, 24-26, 30-31, 34) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/4938003/
4. Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India — (2013) 7 SCC 316, Supreme Court, 2 Jul 2013 (paras 28(i)-(vii), 32) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/160345694/
5. Union of India v. Rajbir Singh — (2015) 12 SCC 264, Supreme Court, 13 Feb 2015 (para 15) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/64172805/
6. Sukhvinder Singh v. Union of India — CA 5605/2010, Supreme Court, 25 Jun 2014 (para 9) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/91060800/
7. Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 — Act 55 of 2007 (ss. 3(o)(i), 14, 21, 22, 30-32) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/50690063/
8. Armed Forces Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2008 — Rules 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12 (rr. 4(1), 6(2), 7, 9(1), 9(3), 10, 12(1)) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/121103332/
9. Entitlement Rules 2008 (Ministry of Defence) — MoD letter 18.01.2010 (appendix header 18.1.2009) (rr. 5, 6, 7 (PDF pp 2-3)) https://desw.gov.in/sites/default/files/ER-2008.pdf
10. Entitlement Rules 2023 (Ministry of Defence) — MoD letter F.No. 16(3)/2023/D(Pen/Pol)/Vol-II, 21.09.2023 (PDF pp 1-2 (supersession), r. 7(b) p.7, r. 8(a) p.7, r. 12 p.11, r. 17 p.13, rr. 19-20 p.18, r. 21(a) p.18) https://desw.gov.in/sites/default/files/Entitlement%20Rules%202023.pdf

Comments