Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 19.02.2026
EX SGT (DR.) OMKAR NATH KATIYAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kumar Rajesh Singh and Ms. Punam Singh, Advs.
Through: Mr. Viplav Acharya, Ms. Laavanya Kaushik and Ms. Khyaati Bansal, Advs.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 2386/2026
3. This petition has been filed with the following prayers: “(A) Set aside /quash judgment and order dated 26.09.2025 passed by the Ld. Tribunal in OA No.129i 'of 2017; (B) Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction quashing and setting aside the discharge certificate along with all consequential orders, as passed and/or altered by the respondents, being illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of the provisions of the Air Force Act, particularly Sections 23 and 15(2)(a) and 15(2)(h), which were wrongly invoked to remove the petitioner from service;
(C) Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the respondents to pay the petitioner salary and all consequential benefits for the remaining service period of four (4) years and eight (8) months, and re-conduct the Release Medical Board (RMB) strictly in accordance with the applicable rules and GMO guidelines.”
4. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 26.09.2025 of the Armed Forces Tribunal in OA No. 1291/2017 filed by the petitioner, wherein the Tribunal in paragraph 12 onwards has stated as under:
18. We further note that the disability of ‘Horse Shoe Kidney’ is congenital in origin and in the instant case had been corrected through surgical intervention i.e. Nephrectomy, wherein the RMB has observed that there was no close temporal association of this condition with service in High Altitude Area (HAA), Field, or Counter-Insurgency (CI) Operations.
19. Thus, it can be safely concluded that with no evidence of any trauma or aggravating factor, supported by the fact that the disability has arisen within two years of the enrollment, as has been admitted by the applicant himself, it is highly probable that the condition may have pre existed prior to enrollment and had not been detected during the recruitment medical examination, as the applicant had not disclosed any prior medical history.
20. Accordingly, the Release Medical Board concluded that this disability could not be considered either attributable to or aggravated by military service, as it lacked any causal connection to the applicant's brief tenure of one to two years in active service. Therefore, there is no ground to dispute the opinion of the medical board in such a case, where there is nothing concrete and substantial on record to show that the disability has any casual connection to the conditions of service.
21. We are conscious of the fact that the applicant's disability could not have been detected at the time of his initial medical examination by the Medical Board, as the medical examination at the time of enrollment is not exhaustive in nature. Detection of such ailments ordinarily requires a combination' of medical history, detailed physical examination, and advanced imaging studies, which has been substantially resonated in the observations of this tribunal in OA 490/2022 titled as Ex AC (U/T) Harishankar Vs, Union of India & Ors, wherein this Tribunal has observed as under:- “There is not an iota of doubt that the provisions for disability pension and invalid pension under the Pension Regulations are beneficial provisions for the service personnel of the armed forces, yet the same cannot be used as a tool to claim the benefits which do not accrue to the claimants without them rendering service enough to have casual connection to the disabilities arising out of service. It is important to observe that the primary medical examination conducted at the time of enrollment is not a rigorous medical examination procedure as followed during the Cat/Re- Cat Medical Boards or for that matter RMB/IMB, and that any disability which can escape the initial medical examination cannot be used as a tool to claim disability/invalid pension even without rendering adequate service to showcase attributability or aggravation and therefore, cannot be held as qualified for disability or invalid pension.” (emphasis supplied)
22. In view of the aforesaid detailed analysis, including the medical literature on the subject, we ^re of the considered opinion that none of causes linked to the disability of the applicant, show any causal connection with the military service, and thus, the OA is devoid of merit.
23. Consequently, the OA 1291 /2017 is dismissed.
24. No order as to costs.
25. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of.”
5. There is no dispute that the petitioner has confined his prayer before the Tribunal to grant of disability pension in respect of the disability i.e. Renal Hypertension assessed at 20%.
6. The question arose before the Tribunal as to whether the said disability is attributable and aggravated because of military service. The Release Medical Board has held the disability is secondary in nature and that the petitioner has not been exposed to any condition which is attributable to military service.
7. The Tribunal found on the basis of literature that Horseshoe Kidney which the petitioner suffered from, is congenital in origin, which was corrected through surgical interventions, and there is no causal connection between the disability and his work.
8. We are of the view that given the finding of the Tribunal, which is based on the conclusion drawn by the Review Medical Board, the impugned order does not call for any interference. As such the same is liable to be dismissed. We order accordingly.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J FEBRUARY 19, 2026 rt