The burden to prove non-attributability of disability to military service lies with the employer once a service member is presumed sound at entry.

JUDGMENT :

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. This petition assails orders dated 1 November 2023 and 19 April 2024 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, [“the AFT”, hereinafter] in OA 1251/2021 whereby the respondent’s application for grant of disability pension on the ground that he suffers from Pituitary Macroadenoma (Gonadotropinoma) assessed at 20% for life, rounded off to 50% for life has been allowed by the AFT.

2. The issue is covered by a recent decision rendered by us in UOI v Ex Sub Gawas Anil Madso, [2025 SCC OnLine Del 2018]

3. Nonetheless, we have heard Mr. Syed Abdul Haseeb, learned CGSC for the petitioner, and have perused the record.

4. The respondent was released in Low Medical Category on his being found to be suffering from Pituitary Macroadenoma. From the record, including the proceedings of the Release Medical Board, [“RMB”, hereinafter], the following facts emerged:

(i) The respondent had served in the Air Force for over 39 years before he was diagnosed as suffering from Pituitary Macroadenoma.

(ii) The respondent, in his self-declaration, specifically declared that he had not been suffering from Pituitary Macroadenoma prior to joining the Indian Air Force. The declaration reads thus:

(iii) The reason regarding the Pituitary Macroadenoma suffered by the respondent has not been attributable to military service, as entered by the RMB reads thus:

“Pituitary Macroadenoma (Gonadotropinoma (old) (ICD No.D 35.2 Z 09.0 : Onset (Aug 12) while posted to peace station (E & ITI, Bangalore) Wef 12 Nov 07. There is no close time association with stress / strain of service. Hence, NANA as per approved initial medical board dated 01 Jan 2013.”

(iv) We have already held, in our judgment in Gawas Anil Madso, that where the applicant was not suffering from the ailment at the time of entry into service, the RMB is required to positively identify the cause for the ailment, to justify a finding that it is not attributable to military service. The Commanding Officer’s certificate specifically states that the respondent was not responsible, owing to any act or omission of his, for the ailment from which he was suffering. The entry in that regard reads as under:

(v) The RMB has certified the respondent as suffering from 20% disability for life, which is directed to be broad banded to 50% for life on account of Pituitary Macroadenoma.

5. In such circumstances, we have held in our decision in Ex Sub Gawas Anil Madso that the respondent would be entitled to disability pension.

6. We do not deem it necessary to reproduce our findings in the said decision, so as not to burden this judgment.

7. We have also been conscious of the fact that we are exercising certiorari jurisdiction over the decision of the AFT and are not sitting in appeal over the said decision.

8. The parameters of certiorari jurisdiction are delineated in the following passages of Syed Yakoob v K.S. Radhakrishnan, [AIR 1964 SC 477]

“7. The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Article 226 has been frequently considered by this Court and the true legal position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals: these are cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal acts illegally or properly, a