##PAGE1##

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 19776/2025, CM APPL. 82603/2025 and CM APPL.

82604/2025

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners

Through: Mr. Raj Kumar, CGSPC with

Mr. Manish Kumar Singh and Mr.

Mritunjay, DAV Legal Cell Air Force,

versus

EX MWO UMESH CHANDRA MISHRA 649297

.....Respondent

Through: Mr. Baljeet Singh, Ms. Deepika

Sheoran and Mr. Abhishek Gahlyan, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

% 24.12.2025

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. This writ petition assails an order dated 28 August 2023 passed

by the Armed Forces Tribunal, $~24 in OA 971/2019 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

41 years after the respondent joined the service. No Primary

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:AWJIT.P.(C)19776/2025 Page1of

KUMAR

Signing Date:24.12.2025

18:52:57

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:

“Primary Hypertension (OLD) I-10, Z-09.0 - (a) The disability is a

lifestyledisorderandnot duetoanyinfection.

(b) Onset in Peace Area (New Delhi) on Dec 2009. No close time

associationwithfieldservices 1yearpriortoonset ofdisease.

(c)Nodelayindiagnosis / Treatment

(d) No close time associated with stress and strain of military

services likefieldarea/ HAA/CIOps.

(e) Hence, NANA in terms of Para 43 of GMO (Mil Pen) 2008.

(Amended)”

4. In around 223 similar cases, in which the reasoning of the RMB

is substantially the same, including Union of India v. Ex. SGT Manoj

K L Retd, 22025SCCOnLineDel8442 and Union of India v. Rajveender Singh Mallhi³ as well as

Union of India v. Ex Sub Gawas Anil Madso, 4318(2025)DLT711, 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. Mr. Raj Kumar, learned CGSPC for the Union of India fairly

1“AFT”,hereinafter

32025SCCOnLineDel3956

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:AWJIT.P.(C)19776/2025 Page2of

KUMAR

Signing Date:24.12.2025

18:52:57

acknowledges that this dispute is entirely covered by the aforesaid

decisions.

8. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine

9. Compliance with the order of the AFT be positively ensured

within twelve weeks from today.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

DECEMBER 24, 2025/yg

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:AWJIT.P.(C)19776/2025 Page3of

KUMAR

Signing Date:24.12.2025

18:52:57