Mr. Manish Kumar Singh and Mr. Mritunjay v. Ex MWO Umesh Chandra Mishra

Delhi High Court · 24 Dec 2025 · 2025:DHC:11962-DB
C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla
W.P.(C) 19776/2025
2025 SCC OnLine Del 3956
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 found to be service-connected despite RMB's contrary finding.

Full Text
Translation output
W.P.(C) 19776/2025
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 19776/2025, CM APPL. 82603/2025 and CM APPL.
82604/2025 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Raj Kumar, CGSPC
WITH
Mr. Manish Kumar Singh and Mr. Mritunjay, DAV Legal Cell Air Force,
VERSUS
EX MWO UMESH CHANDRA MISHRA 649297 .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Baljeet Singh, Ms. Deepika Sheoran and Mr. Abhishek Gahlyan, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
24.12.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. This writ petition assails an order dated 28 August 2023 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal[1] in OA 971/2019 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 life rounded off to 50%. The onset of the Primary Hypertension was 41 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) I-10, Z-09.0 - (a) The disability is a lifestyle disorder and not due to any infection. (b) Onset in Peace Area (New Delhi) on Dec 2009. No close time association with field services 1 year prior to onset of disease.

(c) No delay in diagnosis / Treatment

(d) No close time associated with stress and strain of military services like field area / HAA/CI Ops. (e) Hence, NANA in terms of Para 43 of GMO (Mil Pen) 2008. (Amended)”

4. In around 223 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. Raj Kumar, learned CGSPC for the Union of India fairly “AFT”, hereinafter

2025 SCC OnLine Del 3956 318 (2025) DLT 711 acknowledges that this dispute is entirely covered by the aforesaid decisions.

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 24, 2025