Union of India v. Lt Col AA Godbole

Delhi High Court · 04 Dec 2024 · 2024:DHC:9392-DB
Navin Chawla; Shalinder Kaur
W.P.(C) 16773/2024
2024:DHC:9392-DB
administrative appeal_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Union of India's petition, upholding the Armed Forces Tribunal's order granting disability pension to a retired army officer based on the Release Medical Board's findings.

Full Text
Translation output
W.P.(C) 16773/2024
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 04.12.2024
W.P.(C) 16773/2024
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Dr.Vijendra Singh, CGSC
VERSUS
LT COL AA GODBOLE (RETD.) .....Respondent
Through: Counsel (appearance not given)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 70962/2024 (Exemption)
JUDGMENT

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 16773/2024 & CM APPL. 70961/2024

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 21.04.2023 passed by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Original Application No.971/2022, titled Lt. Col. A. A. Godbole (Retd) v. Union of India & Ors., allowing the said Original Application filed by the respondent herein and holding the respondent to be entitled to disability element of pension @ 30% rounded off to 50% with effect from the date of his discharge.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Impugned Order is a non-speaking order and has based its finding only on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Dharamair Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (2013) 7 SCC 316, without discussing any facts.

4. While we do find merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, however, at the same time, we must also note that the Release Medical Board, held on 21.09.2015, in its finding had clearly recorded that the disability suffered by the respondent was aggravated by military service. We may reproduce the relevant finding of the Release Medical Board as under:

5. In view of the above finding of the Release Medical Board itself, in fact, we fail to understand how the petitioners could have denied the disability pension to the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show us the reason why despite the Release Medical Board’s opinion, the respondent was not granted the disability pension.

6. We, therefore, dismiss the present petition. The pending application is also disposed of.

7. There shall be no order as to costs.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J SHALINDER KAUR, J DECEMBER 4, 2024/Arya/VS Click here to check corrigendum, if any