Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 4826/2025, CM APPL. 22150/2025 & CM APPL.
22151/2025 UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Himanshu Pathak, Sr. PC
Through: Mr. Ved Prakash, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
JUDGMENT
17.04.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. This writ petition assails order dated 23 November 2023, passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal[1] in OA 2103/2022.
2. By the OA, the respondent, who was discharged from service on 30 January 2022 on the ground of disability, sought disability pension. The AFT has, keeping in mind the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dharamvir Singh v UOI[2], granted the claim of the respondent. “AFT”, hereinafter
3. The ailment from which the respondent suffered was primary hypertension.
4. We have dealt with a similar matter in our decision in UOI v Ex Sub Gawas Anil Madso[3], in which we have attempted to go through and scan the entire body of case law in that regard starting with the decision in Dharamvir Singh.
5. We do not deem it necessary to reiterate the findings in that judgment, which speak for themselves.
6. We have therefore perused and considered the present case in the light of our decision in Ex Sub Gawas Anil Madso.
7. From the record of the Release Medical Board[4] proceedings, the following position emerges:
(i) The respondent was a Cadet in the Navy. He had served for a period of 15 years and 2 days, before he was found to be diagnosed as suffering from primary hypertension,
(ii) During this period, 8 years, 4 months and 9 days was spent afloat.
(iii) To a query as to whether he suffered from any disability before joining the armed forces, the respondent answered in the
“RMB”, hereinafter negative. The correctness of this assertion is not disputed either in the record of the RMB or in the pleadings of the petitioner- UOI before the AFT or before this Court.
(iv) In the Statement of Case, forming Part VI of the RMB record, it is acknowledged that the onset of primary hypertension, in the case of the respondent, was of April 2016.
(v) Part VII of the RMB record contains the opinion of the
Medical Board. While opinion that the primary hypertension from which the respondent suffered was neither attributable nor aggravated by military service, the reason in that regard as provided in the RMB report, is as under: “Neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service vide Para 43 Chapter VI of GMO 2008 (onset while service at peace area at INS Hansa, Goa).”
(vi) In the same part of the report of the RMB, to a query as to whether the disease/disability was attributable to the respondent’s own negligence or misconduct, the RMB has specifically answered in the negative. Similarly, to a further query as to whether the hypertension of the respondent was aggravated by the negligence or misconduct of the respondent, too, the answer of the RMB is in the negative. In other words, it is an admitted position that the respondent is not in any way responsible, owing to his mode of life or any other reason, for the primary hypertension from which he was found to be suffering,
(vii) The report of the RMB further certifies that the respondent was suffering from 30% disability life long.
(viii) We have also seen para 43 in Chapter VI of GMO, 2008, which reads thus:
From a reading of the aforesaid para 43, it is apparent that, where the claimant is found to be suffering from essential hypertension which has arisen during service, the question of whether service is attributable to the hypertension has to be looked into. The paragraph, the application also notes that such cases could be explained by variable response exhibited by individuals in stressful situations. Prolonged afloat service is one of the considerations which has been noted as relevant in that regard. We have already seen that, in the case of the respondent, he had undertaken 8 years 4 months and 9 days of afloat service.
(ix) We have also seen the opinion of the medical specialist, which has been annexed in the writ petition. That opinion, too, does not state at any point that the primary hypertension from which the respondent was suffering was not attributable to military service.
8. We are not sitting in appeal over the decision of the AFT. We are exercising certiorari jurisdiction, the parameters of which are set out in the following passages from Syed Yakoob v K.S. Radhakrishnan[5]:
1963 SCC OnLine SC 24 certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised (vide Hari Vishnu Kamath v Syed Ahmad Ishaque[6], Nagandra Nath Bora v Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals Assam[7] and Kaushalya Devi v Bachittar Singh[8].
8. It is, of course, not easy to define or adequately describe what an error of law apparent on the face of the record means. What can be corrected by a writ has to be an error of law; hut it must be such an error of law as can be regarded as one which is apparent on the face of the record. Where it is manifest or clear that the conclusion of law recorded by an inferior Court or Tribunal is based on an obvious mis-interpretation of the relevant statutory provision, or sometimes in ignorance of it, or may be, even in disregard of it, or is expressly founded on reasons which are wrong in law, the said conclusion can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In all these cases, the impugned conclusion should be so plainly inconsistent with the relevant statutory provision that no difficulty is experienced by the High Court in holding that the said error of law is apparent on the face of the record. It may also be that in some cases, the impugned error of law may not be obvious or patent on the face of the record as such and the Court may need an argument to discover the said error; but there can be no doubt that what can be corrected by a writ of certiorari is an error of law and the said error must, on the whole, be of such a character as would satisfy the test that it is an error of law apparent on the face of the record. If a statutory provision is reasonably capable of two constructions and one construction has been adopted by the inferior Court or Tribunal, its conclusion may not necessarily or always be (1955) 1 SCR 1104 (1958) SCR 1240 AIR 1960 SC 1168 open to correction by a writ of certiorari. In our opinion, it is neither possible nor desirable to attempt either to define or to describe adequately all cases of errors which can be appropriately described as errors of law apparent on the face of the record. Whether or not an impugned error is an error of law and an error of law which is apparent on the face of the record, must always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and upon the nature and scope of the legal provision which is alleged to have been misconstrued or contravened.” (Emphasis supplied)
9. In view of the aforesaid factual and legal position, we do not find that, within the parameters of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a case for interference with the impugned order of the AFT is made out.
10. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.
11. Compliance with the order of the AFT, if not already made, be ensured within a period of four weeks from today.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.