Union of India v. 693171-EX WO Om Prakash Yadav

Delhi High Court · 16 Dec 2025 · 2025:DHC:11502-DB
C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla
W.P.(C) 19044/2025
2025:DHC:11502-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, relying on established precedents.

Full Text
Translation output
W.P.(C) 19044/2025
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 19044/2025, CM APPL. 79299/2025, CM APPL.
79300/2025 & CM APPL. 79301/2025 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vijay Joshi, CGSC, Sgt Manish Kumar Singh and Sgt Mritunjay, Air
Force
VERSUS
693171-EX WO OM PRAKASH YADAV .....Respondent
Through: Mr. A.K. Chaudhary, Mr. Baljeet Singh and Ms. Deepika Sheoran, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
16.12.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. This writ petition assails an order dated 25 October 2024 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal[1] 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 “AFT”, hereinafter 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 of the disability was in Nov 2016 while the air warrior was serving in HQ WAC, IAF/New Delhi The disability was detected when he was investigated & evaluated for AME. There is no delay in diagnosis, no close association with stress and strain of military service. Hence, the disability is not attributable to, not aggravated by service as per Para 43 of Chapter VI of GMO (Military Pension)- 2008 (amended).”

4. In almost 208 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 six weeks from today.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J. DECEMBER 16, 2025