Singh and Sgt Mritunjay, DAV Legal Cell Air Force v. 769409 EX JWO Naresh Chand Dabral

Delhi High Court · 18 Dec 2025 · 2025:DHC:11609-DB
C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla
W.P.(C) 19191/2025
2025:DHC:11609-DB
administrative appeal_dismissed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Union of India's writ petition and upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal's order granting disability pension for Primary Hypertension, affirming that such disabilities certified as service-related merit pension despite late onset.

Full Text
Translation output
W.P.(C) 19191/2025
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 19191/2025, CM APPL. 79950/2025, CM APPL.
79951/2025 & CM APPL. 79952/2025 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vijay Joshi, CGSC, Mr. Kuldeep Singh, Adv. Sgt Manish Kumar
Singh and Sgt Mritunjay, DAV Legal Cell Air Force
VERSUS
769409 EX JWO NARESH CHAND DABRAL .....Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
18.12.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. This writ petition assails an order dated 9 October 2024 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal[1] in OA 3866/2023 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 certified as 30% for life, rounded off to 50%. The onset of the Primary Hypertension was 23 years after the respondent joined the service. No Primary “AFT”, hereinafter 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: “Onset in peace area and remained in peace area only prior to onset of disability. There is no close time relationship with HAA/Fd/CI Ops Area. Hence neither considered attributable to nor aggravated by the conditions of service vide Para 43 of GMO MIL pension (amendment)2008.”

4. In 217 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 in 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 six weeks from today.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J. DECEMBER 18, 2025