Sgt Manish Kumar Singh and Sgt Mritunjay v. 671430 EX WO Pravin Kumar Pawar

Delhi High Court · 23 Dec 2025 · 2025:DHC:11898-DB
C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla
W.P.(C) 19525/2025
2025:DHC:11898-DB
administrative petition_dismissed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Union of India's writ petition upholding the Armed Forces Tribunal's grant of disability pension for Primary Hypertension despite the Release Medical Board's contrary finding.

Full Text
Translation output
W.P.(C) 19525/2025
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 19525/2025, CM APPL. 81484/2025 and CM APPL.
81485/2025 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Aksha Amritanshu, SPC
WITH
Ms. Drishti Rawal, Mr. Abhay Nair, Mr. Mayur Goyal and Mr. Sarthak Srivastava, Advs.
Sgt Manish Kumar Singh and Sgt Mritunjay, DAV Legal Cell Air Force
VERSUS
671430 EX WO PRAVIN KUMAR PAWAR .....Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
23.12.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. This writ petition assails an order dated 24 April 2024 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal[1] in OA 3044/2022 whereby the respondent’s prayer for disability pension has been allowed.

2. Disability pension was sought on the ground that the respondent suffered from Primary Hypertension which was found to be 30% for “AFT”, hereinafter life rounded off to 50%. The onset of the Primary Hypertension was 37 years after the respondent joined the service. No Primary Hypertension was noted at the time when the respondent was recruited.

3. The reasoning given by the Release Medical Board for holding that the respondent’s Primary Hypertension was not attributable to or aggravated by service read thus: “Primary Hypertension (Old) I10, Z09.0 – Metabolic disorder with onset in peace station (Bidar). There is no close time association with stress / strain of Field / CIOPS/HAA service. Hence, Neither Attributable nor Aggravated by service as per Para 43 of Chapter VI of GMO 2008.”

4. In 220 similar cases, in which the reasoning of the RMB is substantially the same, including Union of India v. Ex. SGT Manoj K L Retd[2] and Union of India v. Rajveender Singh Mallhi[3] as well as Union of India v. Ex Sub Gawas Anil Madso[4], we have upheld the order of the AFT and dismissed the writ petition.

5. Those decisions apply, mutatis mutandis, to the present case.

6. We have not been informed that any of these decisions has been stayed or interfered with by the Supreme Court.

7. Mr. Aksha Amritanshu, learned SPC for the Union of India, fairly acknowledges that this dispute is entirely covered by the

8. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.

9. Compliance with the order of the AFT be positively ensured within twelve weeks from today.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J. DECEMBER 23, 2025