Dismissed

Union of India and Ors. v. Ex Sgt Anil Sharma (Retd)

Delhi HC9 Dec 2024W.P.(C)/16938/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner Union of India challenged an Armed Forces Tribunal order granting disability element to an ex-Serviceman for Type II Diabetes. The High Court found no error in the Tribunal's reasoning regarding service attribution and rejected the petition under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

The petition and pending application were dismissed; no order of the Tribunal was set aside.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Ex Sgt Anil Sharma… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~70

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of decision: 09.12.2024

¶4

W.P.(C) 16938/2024 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr.Siddhartha Shankar Ray, CGSC with Mr.Shubham Sharma, Adv.

¶5

versus

¶6

EX SGT ANIL SHARMA (RETD) .....Respondent Through: None.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

¶9

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)

¶10

CM APPL. 71756/2024 (Exemption)

¶11

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 16938/2024 & CM APPL. 71755/2024

¶12

This petition challenges the Order dated 07.11.2023 passed by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), in Original Application (in short, ‘OA’) No. 1616/2017, titled Ex SGT Anil Sharma v. Union of India and Others , allowing the OA filed by the respondent herein with the following directions:

¶13

“15. In view of the above observations, the prayer made through the present OA seeking the grant of disability element of pension in relation to the disability of Type II Diabetes Mellitus in the circumstances of the instant

¶14

W.P.(C) 16938/2024 Page 1 of 3

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

Digitally Signed By:SUNIL Signing Da te:1 3.12.2024 21:30:57

¶17

case in view of the Me D letter 20.07.2012 granted concurrence on 12.05.2023 of the DGAMFS Letter, is directed to be assessed@ 20% for life from the date of discharge of the applicant which is directed to be broad banded to 50% for life from the date of discharge in terms of the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UOI & Ors. vs Ram Avtar in Civil Appeal418/2012 decided on 10.12.2014.

¶18

16. However, in view of the present OA having been instituted with much delay on 11.09.2017, with the applicant having since been discharged on 3 1.10.2007, in terms of the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 sec 648, the arrears of the grant of the disability element of pension shall commence to run from a period of three years prior to the institution of this OA.

¶19

17. The respondents are directed to issue the necessary corrigendum PPO, and to make the payments of the arrears as directed herein above within a period of three months from the date of this order and on failure thereof the applicant would be entitled to the interest at the rate of G% per annum, till the date of payment.”

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in not appreciating that the Release Medical Board of the respondent clearly opined that the disease, that is, Diabetes Mellitus (Type-II), is constitutional in nature and, therefore, is neither attributable nor aggravated by service. He submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in drawing a presumption that such a disease can be attributed to service, or the stress and strain attached to the duties.

¶21

In the peculiar facts of the present case, we are unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 16938/2024 Page 2 of 3 By:SUNIL Signing Da te:1 3.12.2024 21:30:57

¶24

In the present case, apart from placing reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India & Ors. , (2013) 7 SCC 316, the learned Tribunal has taken note of the service profile of the respondent; paragraph 26 of the GMO Military Pension, 2008, and opined that the disability suffered by the respondent can be said to be attributable to the stress and strain attached to the service, especially where the respondent was performing duties as a ground training instructor.

¶25

Keeping in view the peculiar facts of this case, we do not deem it fit to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal in exercise of our power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶26

Accordingly, the present petition along with the pending application is dismissed.

¶27

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

¶28

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J

¶29

DECEMBER 9, 2024 /rv/DG Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶30

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 16938/2024 Page 3 of 3 By:SUNIL Signing Da te:1 3.12.2024 21:30:57

Union of India and Ors. v. Ex Sgt Anil Sharma (Retd)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India and Ors. v. Ex Sgt Anil Sharma (Retd)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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.

Ex Rect Bhuw Aneshw Ar Sah Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sh Jiwachh Prasad Roy Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

M/S Mohit International through, Prop. Harsh Anil Kumar Vasant Vs Commissioner of Customs Air Cargo Complex (Exports) & Ors.

Echo International and Ors. Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs Import and Anr.

The Indian Institute of Planning and Management Vs Institute of Marketing and Management

Nirmal Chandra Mandal Vs Director General Cisf and Ors.

Dr Sarbjit Sharma Vs Delhi High Court

Pranav Kumar Vs Union of India through Ministry of Railways & Ors.

Yadav Exhibitors (P) Limited Vs Karur Vysya Bank Limited

Anil Kumar Vs Union of India