Union of India, Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence South Block New Delhi and 4 Others vs No 692650 R Mwo (Hfo) Rajesh Kumar Yadav (Retd)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 3493 of 2026

¶3

Union Of India, Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Defence South Block New Delhi And 4 Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

No 692650 R Mwo (Hfo) Rajesh Kumar Yadav (Retd) .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anand Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent(s) :

¶7

Court No. - 5

¶8

HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.

¶9

1. Heard Shri Anand Dwivedi, learned Standing Counsel for petitionersUnion of India.

¶10

2. We have extensively heard the counsel for the petitioners.

¶11

3. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the judgment and order and order dated 19.11.2025 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal" ) in Original Application No.297 of 2025, whereby the Original Application preferred by the respondent for grant of disability pension has been allowed.

¶12

4. The respondent was enrolled in the Indian Air Force on 04.04.1984 and was discharged on 31.08.2023 in the Low Medical Category on attaining the age of superannuation after rendering 39 years, 4 months, and 27 days of regular service. As per the procedure, he was subjected to the Release Medical Board (hereinafter referred to as "RMB" ) prior to his discharge from service at the Air Force Station, Kanpur on 11.05.2023. The RMB opined that the respondent had been suffering from Primary Hypertension, which was assessed at 30% for life. It further opined that the said disability was not aggravated nor attributable to the Air Force service and consequently rejected his claim for disability pension by means of a letter dated 16.08.2024. The respondent thereafter has preferred an appeal on 25.04.2024, which was also rejected by the Appellate Committee on First

¶13

WRIA No. 3493 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

Appeals and subsequently filed the Original Application before the Tribunal.

¶16

5. Before the Tribunal, it was contended that the respondent had been posted at various places, including field postings and forward postings and the Primary Hypertension was detected in March, 2001 when he was posted at Hasimara. The RMB opined that at the time when the respondent was detected as suffering with Hypertension, he was posted in a peace area, and in this regard stated that : "The onset of disability is in peace area, Hasimara. Disability is life style disorder, not due to stress and strain of service. There is no delay in diagnosis/treatment. Aggravation is conceded when the onset occurs while serving in Fd/Cl Ops/HAA/Afloat service. Hence disability is conceded as NANA by service in terms of Para 43, Chapter VI, GMO 2002/2008."

¶17

6. The Tribunal considered the case of the respondent and also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dharamvir Singh vs. Union of India and others reported in (2013) 7 SCC 316 , especially paragraph 29 thereof, wherein it was opined that once, at the time of entering the Armed Forces, a soldier is subjected to a medical examination and at the time of release from service is again subjected to the RMB, any disease detected at the time of release would be attributable to military service. In this regard, the Tribunal was of the view that the disability of Primary Hypertension detected in the respondent was due to his service in the Armed Forces and was clearly attributable thereto.

¶18

7. The Tribunal also considered various other judgments and returned a finding that the disease contracted by the respondent was attributable to and aggravated by military service. Consequently, it held that he was entitled to disability pension. Further, as his disability was assessed at 30%, applying the principle of rounding off, the Tribunal granted the benefit of rounding off and held that the disability would be assessed as 50% for life from the date of discharge, and accordingly allowed the Original Application.

¶19

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while assailing the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal, submitted that the judgment in the case of Dharamvir Singh (supra) would not be applicable inasmuch as the same was rendered taking into account the Pension Regulations for the Indian Air Force, 1961, whereas subsequently, the rules have been amended and the

¶20

WRIA No. 3493 of 2026

¶21

3

¶22

case of the respondent has been considered under the Pension Regulation for the Army, 2008. He supported the order passed by the RMB, stating that the disease contracted by the respondent was not attributable to Armed Forces service, and therefore, the findings returned by the Tribunal deserve interference.

¶23

9. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as perused the record. A perusal of the proceedings of RMB, as annexed by the petitioners, indicates that the respondent was posted from 11.10.2002 at Jammu in a forward area and from 23.08.2011 to 07.08.2014 at Nalia, which is a modified forward area. Accordingly, the Appendix to the Ministry of Defence Letter No.1(3)/2002/D(Pen/Pol) dated 18.01.2009 (Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards to Armed Forces Personnel, 2008) itself provides that a disability shall be conceded as aggravated by service if its onset is hastened or its subsequent course is worsened by specific conditions of military service, such as posted in places of extreme climatic conditions or environmental factors related to service conditions, e.g., field areas, operations, high altitudes etc.

¶24

10. In the present case, even if the opinion of the RMB is accepted, the disease of Primary Hypertension was detected on 20.03.2001 when the respondent was posted as a Sargeant in Hasimara. Subsequently, he continued to be posted at various places, including forward areas and remained in field posting. In this regard, certainly Clause 11 of the Entitlement Rules would be applicable. The findings of the RMB are thus perverse and contrary to its own records. The RMB ought to have considered the service profile of the respondent correctly and should also have taken into account the fact that he had been posted in field and operational areas subsequent to detection of the disease in March, 2001.

¶25

11. For the aforesaid reasons, we find that the Tribunal has rightly considered the case of the respondent. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, we do not find any ground for interference. The petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed . No order as to costs.

¶26

(Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Alok Mathur,J.)

¶27

April 3, 2026 Shubhankar

¶28

Digitally signed by :- SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Union of India, Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence South Block New Delhi and 4 Others v. No 692650 R Mwo (Hfo) Rajesh Kumar Yadav (Retd)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India, Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence South Block New Delhi and 4 Others v. No 692650 R Mwo (Hfo) Rajesh Kumar Yadav (Retd)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Asha Rani vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Namami Gange and Gramin Jalapoorti Vibhag Lko. and Another

U.O.I. Thru.the Secy. Ministry of Defence,Deptt. of Defence Production and Supplies and 3 Ors. vs Rakesh Singh

Kuldip Singh Sethi vs State of U.P. Thru. the Chief Secy. Lko. and 2 Others

Soni and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Revenue Lko. and 7 Others

No. 13838612 Ex Sep Bhopal Singh vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence New Delhi and 3 Others

U.O.I. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry of Defence New Delhi and 2 Others vs Arvind Kumar Singh (Hav 15397991L)