The presumption of sound health at entry into military service mandates that any subsequent disability is presumed to be attributable to service unless proven otherwise.

2. The issue is covered by a recent decision rendered by us in UOI v Ex Sub Gawas Anil Madso2.

3. Nonetheless, we have heard Ms. Ira Singh, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the petitioners, and have perused the record.

4. The respondent was released in Low Medical Category on his being found to be suffering from Primary Hypertension. From the record, including the proceedings of the Release Medical Board3, the following facts emerged:

(i) The respondent had served in the Indian Army for over 26 years before he was diagnosed as suffering from Primary Hypertension.

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

2. Did the disability exist before entering service? (Y/N Could be) No.

The correctness of this declaration is not doubted either by the RMB or by the petitioner before the AFT or before this Court.

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

“(a) PRIMARY HYPERTENSION: Is conceded to be NANA. Ref Para 43 of Chapter VI of GMO (Mil Pension) 2008”

(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:

5(a) Was the disability attributable to the individual’s own negligence or misconduct? If Yes, in what way? NA

(v) Regarding para 43 of the Chapter VI of the GMO 2008, we have, in our judgment in UOI v WO Binod Kumar Sah (Retd4), observed thus:

“12. Para 43 of the Chapter VI of the GMO 2008, vivisected into its individual components, specifies that, while dealing with hypertension,

(i) the RMB is required to determine whether the hypertension is primary or secondary,

(ii) if the hypertension is secondary, entitlement consideration should be directed to the underlying disease process,

(iii) where disablement for essential hypertension appears to have arisen to, or become worse in, service, it has to be considered whether service compulsion caused aggravation,

(iv) in cases where the disease has been reported after long and frequent spells of service in Field/HAA/Active Operational Areas, the case could be explained by variable response exhibited by different individuals to stressful situations and

(v) primary hypertension would be considered aggravated if it occurred while the officer was serving in field areas, HAA, CIOPS areas or prolonged afloat service.”

(vi) The RMB has certified the respondent as suffering from 30% disability on account of Primary Hypertension, lifelong.

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. Rad