Union of India and Ors. v. 696631 Ex JWO Rakesh Kumar Gupta

Delhi High Court · 08 Oct 2024 · 2025:DHC:11815-DB
C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla
W.P.(C) 19485/2025
2025:DHC:11815-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 order granting disability pension for Primary Hypertension attributable to military service.

Full Text
Translation output
W.P.(C) 19485/2025
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 19485/2025
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sushil Kumar Pandey, SPC
VERSUS
696631 EX JWO RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Durgesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
22.12.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. This writ petition assails an order dated 8 October 2024 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal[1] in OA 3830/2023 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 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 W.P.(C) 19485/2025 aggravated by service read thus: “Primary Hypertension (Old) 1-10, Z 09, 0 - As per Para 43 of Chapter VI of GMO (Military Pension)-2008(onset in peace, no delay in diagnosis/ treatment. No close time association with CI OPS/HAA/Field Areas.”

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. This dispute is entirely covered by the aforesaid decisions.

8. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

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

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.