Dismissed

Union of India & Ors. v. Gp Capt S Mediratta Vsm 18893ADM Fc Retd

Delhi HC5 Dec 2024W.P.(C)/13683/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disability pension dispute over Primary Hypertension aggravated by high altitude field posting. The medical board's original opinion was changed at the direction of Headquarters without reason. The High Court found the denial illegal and declined to interfere with the Tribunal's direction to issue PPO with arrears, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

None granted; petition dismissed and Tribunal's order directing issuance of PPO with arrears upheld.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Gp Capt S Mediratta… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~176

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 05.12.2024

¶3

- W.P.(C) 13683/2024 & CM APPL. 57314/2024 UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

¶4

.....Petitioners Through: Ms. Radhika Bishwajit Dubey,CGSC with Ms. Gurleen Kaur Waraich and Mr. Aviral Jain, Advs.Sgt. Manish Kumar Singh, Sgt.Mritunjay, Legal Cell, Air Force.

¶5

versus

¶6

GP CAPT S MEDIRATTA VSM 18893 ADM FC RETD

¶7

.....Respondent Through: Mr.Ajai Bhalla, Adv.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR

¶10

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)

¶11

This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13.04.2023 passed by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in Original Application No. 1979/2021, allowing the Original Application filed by the respondent herein with the following direction:-

¶12

“7. The respondents are thus directed to calculate, sanctionand issue the necessary PPO to the applicant within a periodof three months from the date of receipt of copy of this orderand the amount of arrears shall be paid

¶13

Signature Not Verified

¶14

W.P.(C) 13683/2024 Page 1 of 3

¶15

Digitally Signed By:SUNIL Signing Da te:1 2.12.2024 19:20:50

¶16

by the respondents,failing which the applicant will be entitled for interest @6%p.a. from the date of receipt of copy of the order by therespondents.”

¶17

It is the case of the petitioners that the learned Tribunal has wrongly placed reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India and Others , (2013) 7 SCC 316, and drawn a presumption in favour of the respondent for allowing the Original Application. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the medical board proceedings could not have been interfered with by the learned Tribunal.

¶18

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention to the medical board proceedings and submits that, based on a report from a specialist, the medical board had earlier opined that the disability, namely, Primary Hypertension, suffered by the respondent was aggravated by service due to stress and strain in high altitude field posting. The said opinion, however, was disagreed with by the Headquarters, and the medical board was directed to provide justification for the opinion. The medical board was directed to change the opinion, which it subsequently did, now stating that the disability was not aggravated by service. He submits that, in fact, this itself smacked of mala fide.

¶19

We tend to agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶20

In the present case, the medical board, after considering the high altitude field posting of the respondent in Shillong, had clearly

¶21

Signature Not Verified

¶22

W.P.(C) 13683/2024 Page 2 of 3

¶23

Digitally Signed By:SUNIL Signing Da te:1 2.12.2024 19:20:50

¶24

opined that the disability suffered by the respondent was aggravated by service. It was changed only at the direction of the Headquarters, this time without assigning any reason and merely stating that as the occurrence had taken place in a peace area, it could not be stated to have been aggravated by service. The Medical Board having acted at the dictate of the administrative body, the order denying disability pension to the respondent based thereon, is rendered illegal.

¶25

We, therefore, do not see any reason to interfere with the finding/direction of the learned Tribunal.

¶26

Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the present petition. The same is dismissed. Pending application is also dismissed.

¶27

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

¶28

SHALINDER KAUR, J

¶29

DECEMBER 5, 2024 /rv/VS

¶30

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 13683/2024 Page 3 of 3 By:SUNIL Signing Da te:1 2.12.2024 19:20:50

Union of India & Ors. v. Gp Capt S Mediratta Vsm 18893ADM Fc Retd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India & Ors. v. Gp Capt S Mediratta Vsm 18893ADM Fc Retd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhanraj Singh and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Arun Maitri Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Feeroj Khan Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Satyavir Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Davinder Bajaj Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 23(3), Delhi & Ors.

Vmvs Textiles Private Limited Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 26(1) & Anr.

Mr. J. Chakraborty Vs M/S Gail (India) Limited & Anr.

Ashish Kumar Shukla Proprietor S.P.S Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Service Tax & Anr.

Satyavir Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Vs the Director General Central Indusrial Security Force and Ors.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Lt Col Aa Godbole (Retd.)

Subhash Chand Vs Union of India and Ors.

Union of India & Ors. Vs SL-3939F Col Mpc Rao (Retd.)

Union of India & Ors. Vs Col Bhaskar Dev Burman Retd