Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 157
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ
SUB/MAJ HANUMAN SINGH – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS – Respondent
W.P.(C) 16100/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr Manoj Kumar Gupta
For the Respondents: Mr Amit Tiwari, CGSC
The court reinforced that disabilities affecting personnel are presumed attributable to military service unless conclusively proven otherwise, emphasizing the incorrect denial by the AFT based on personal health factors.
Headnote:(A) Pension Regulations 2008 - Paragraphs 53(a), 423, and Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards 2008 - Disability pension - AFT denied entitlement based on assessment of disabilities as neither attributable nor aggravated by military service - Court finds AFT's reasoning flawed, emphasizing military service's impact on health - Weight concerns not valid grounds for denying service connection to disabilities - Judicial principles established affirm that disabilities should be presumed attributable to service unless proven otherwise. (Paras 12, 37, 41)
(B) Medical Board Determination - The presumption that disabilities are service-related holds unless rebutted - Responsibility of establishing any non-service connection lies with the administration, not the individual. (Paras 29, 36)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a veteran, claimed that his disabilities of primary hypertension and diabetes mellitus type-II, developed during military service, were disallowed by the AFT which assessed them as unrelated to service. (Paras 1-24)
Findings of Court:
The AFT's denial was based on a misinterpretation of medical findings relating to the onset conditions of the petitioner, who was assessed to have a 40% disability rating for life. The ruling on delay was also found to be untenable. (Paras 40-41)
Issues: The key issues included whether the disabilities were connected to military service and whether the AFT misjudged the impact of personal health choices. (Paras 27-41)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the AFT improperly applied weight as a criterion for denying the connection between military service and the petitioner's disabilities, contradicting established legal principles regarding disability pensions. (Paras 38-39)
Result: Petition allowed, with orders for awarding disability pension and arrears with interest.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition filed for disability pension and quashing orders (Para 1 , 8 , 34) |
| 2. details of petitioner's military service and health issues (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. appeal against initial denial of disability pension (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. arguments regarding entitlement and medical assessments (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 19 , 25) |
| 5. court's observations and legal framework for disability pension claims (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 35) |
| 6. granting of disability pension granted along with interest (Para 41 , 42) |
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL
1. This petition has been filed with the following prayers:
“A. Quash and set aside the Impugned Orders pass by the Ld. AFT in OA/2892/2020 dated 03 Sep 2024 as well as RA/54/2024 dated 16 Oct 2024, being non sustainable in ten11 of settled law and contrary to the policy in vogue;
and/or
B. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any appropriate order/ writ directing the Respondents to grant the petitioner disability element @ 40% rounding off to 50% being entitled in term of Para-53 of Pension Regulation 2008 and GM0-2008, by treating the disabilities as attributable and aggravated to Military service, duly broad banded (if required) in terms of
Law upheld in Ram Avtar Case; and/or
C. Direct the respondents to pay the due arrears of disability pension with interest @10% p.a. with effect from the date of retirement with all the consequential benefits, and/or Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, in the interest of Justice.”
2. The petitioner in this case, Ex Subedar Major Hanuman Singh enrolled in the Army on 01.08.1983 and was sent to the Artillery Centre Nasik Road Camp for basic military training. After this the petitioner served with various units/establishments.
3. The facts surrounding the present petition are that the petitioner, while serving with 148 Light Air Defence Regiment (Composite) located at Suratgarh (Rajasthan) (Modified Field), was downgraded to low medical category ‘S1H1A1P3(T-24)E1’ for diagnosis “PRIMARY HYPERTENSION” (“PH”) and “DIABETES MELLITUS TYPE-II” (“DM Type-II”) for a period of six months with effect from 17 Mar 2016 to 01 Sep 2016. On review, the petitioner was downgraded to permanent low medical category ‘SlHlAlP2(Permanent)El’ for diagnosis “ PRIMARY HYPERTENSION” and “DIABETES MELLITUS TYPE-II” for a period of two years with effect from 05.07.2016 to 07.07.2018. Thereafter, he was granted sheltered appointment with effect from 05.07.2016 to continue in service in the public interest as per Additional Directorate General of Manpower/MP-3 (PBOR), Integrated Headquarters of Ministry of Defence (Army).
4. On completion of the terms and engagement of service, the petitioner was discharged, vide Army Air Defence Records Letter No. 469/JCO/CUO/89/CA- l, dated 28.07.2016, from service with effect from 28.02.2017 by mentioning as under:
“Transferred to pension establishment on completion of service age/ tenure limit as laid down in Para 163 of Regulations for the Army (Revised Edition)-1987 as modified vide Government of India, Ministry of Defence letter No 14(3)/98/D(AG) dated 03 Sep .1998 finder the item 1 (i) (a) of table annexed to Rule 13 (3) of Army Rule 1954.
5. It is submitted that since, the Petitioner was in permanent low medical category, he was brought before a duly constituted Release Medical Board held at 184 Military Hospital on 10 Sep 2016 to assess the cause, nature and degree of disablement. Release Medical Board after physically examined the Petitioner, opined his disabilities as under:
5. Hence, the petitioner was discharged from service under Rule 13(3) of the Army Rules , 1954 and granted service pension vide PCDA (Pension), Allahabad Pension Payment Order No.S/19982/2017 (Army) dated 06.04.2017. Thereafter, on receipt of the Release Medical Board (RMB) opinion, an Adjudication Board was constituted to adjud
