Union of India challenged an AFT order granting a retired Air Force personnel disability pension for Diabetes Mellitus Type-II and Primary Hypertension. The Division Bench, following its own precedents on the GMO 2008 and the presumption favouring disabled soldiers, found no error apparent in the AFT's decision.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~68
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Ms Radhika Bishwajit Dubey CGSC, Ms Gurleen Kaur Waraich, Mr Kritarth Upadhyay, Ms Aprajita Verma, Advs.
Sgt Mritunjay and Sgt Manish Kumar Singh
versus
670939 EX JWO RAJENDRA PRASAD SINGH
.....Respondent
Through:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
%
26.11.2025
This case is being taken up today as 25 November 2025 was declared as holiday on the occasion of 350th anniversary of ‘Guru Teg Bahadur’s Martyrdom Day’.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. This petition assails order dated 29 August 2024 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal1 in OA 2425/2019 whereby the respondent’s application for grant of disability pension on the ground that he suffers from Diabetes Mellitus Type-II (Old) with 20% disability and Primary Hypertension (Old) with 30% disability have been allowed by the AFT.
1 “the AFT”, hereinafter Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 17921/2025 KUMAR Signing Da te:2 7.11.2025 20:26:40
Page 1 of 9
2. The issue is covered by a recent decision rendered by us in UOI v Ex Sub Gawas Anil Madso2 .
3. Nonetheless, we have heard Ms Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, learned CGSC for the petitioners, and have perused the record.
4. The respondent was released in Low Medical Category on his being found to be suffering from Diabetes Mellitus Type-II and Primary Hypertension. From the record, including the proceedings of the Release Medical Board3 , the following facts emerged:
(i) The respondent had served in the Indian Air Force for over 36 years before he was diagnosed as suffering from Diabetes Mellitus Type-II and Primary Hypertension.
(ii) The respondent, in his self-declaration, specifically declared that he had not been suffering from Diabetes Mellitus Type-II and Primary Hypertension prior to joining the Indian Air Force. The declaration reads thus:
The correctness of this declaration is not doubted either by the RMB or by the petitioner before the AFT or before this Court.
(iii) The reason regarding the Diabetes Mellitus Type-II and
2 318 (2025) DLT 711 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 17921/2025 KUMAR Signing Da te:2 7.11.2025 20:26:40
Page 2 of 9
Primary Hypertension suffered by the respondent has not been attributable to military service, as entered by the RMB reads thus:
“DM Type II (Old): A lifestyle related metabolic disorder. Onset Oct 2006 while posted at 9 BRD Pune a peace STN. No close time association with stress/strain of field /HAA/CI Ops of service. The disability is neither attributable to service nor aggravated by Military service in terms of para 26 of Chapter VI of Medical Officer’s guide to military pension 2008.”
“Primary Hypertension (Old): A lifestyle related metabolic disorder. Onset Jul 2010 while posted at 2207 Sqn Ambala a peace station. There is no close time association with stress/strain of field/HAA/CI Ops of service. Hence disability is neither attributable to service nor aggravated by Military service in terms of para 43 of Chapter VI of Medical Officer’s guide to military pension 2008.”
(iv) We have already held, in our judgment in Gawas Anil Madso , that where the applicant was not suffering from the ailment at the time of entry into service, the RMB is required to positively identify the cause for the ailment, to justify a finding that it is not attributable to military service. The Commanding Officer’s certificate specifically states that the respondent was not responsible, owing to any act or omission of his, for the ailment from which he was suffering. The entry in that regard reads as under:
Signature Not Verified3 “ RMB ” , hereinafter Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 17921/2025 KUMAR Signing Da te:2 7.11.2025 20:26:40
Page 3 of 9
(v) Regarding para 43 of the Chapter VI of the GMO 2008, we have, in our judgment in UOI v WO Binod Kumar Sah (Retd4 ) , observed thus:
“12 . Para 43 of the Chapter VI of the GMO 2008, vivisected into its individual components, specifies that, while dealing with hypertension
(i) the RMB is required to determine whether the hypertension is primary or secondary,
(ii) if the hypertension is secondary, entitlement consideration should be directed to the underlying disease process,
(iii) where disablement for essential hypertension appears to have arisen to, or become worse in, service, it has to be considered whether service compulsion caused aggravation,
(iv) in cases where the disease has been reported after long and frequent spells of service in Field/HAA/Active Operational Areas, the case could be explained by variable response exhibited by different individuals to stressful situations and
(v) primary hypertension would be considered aggravated if it occurred while the officer was serving in field areas, HAA, CIOPS areas or prolonged afloat service.”
(vi) Regarding para 26 of the Chapter VI of the GMO 2008, we have, in our judgment in UOI v EX MWO HFO Bharat Tiwari5 , observed thus:
“11. Para 26 of the Chapter VI of the GMO 20087, vivisected into its individual components, specifies that, while dealing with diabetes mellitus:
4 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2355
5 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2358 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 17921/2025 KUMAR Signing Da te:2 7.11.2025 20:26:40
Page 4 of 9
(i) DM is a metabolic disease,
(ii) DM is characterised by hyperglycaemia,
(iii) DM is of two types, Type I and Type II with the physiological and pathological reason for the arising of the disease,
(iv) Secondary diabetes is stated to be also attributable to drugs or trauma to pancreas or brain surgery or otherwise, as well as to diseases of the pituitary, thyroid and adrenal gland,
(v) DM Type II would be conceded aggravated if onset occurs serving in Fields/CIOPS/HAA and prolonged afloat service, and
(vi) Diabetes secondary to chronic pancreatitis due to alcohol dependence and gestational diabetes should not be considered attributable to service.”
(vii) The RMB has certified the respondent as suffering from 20% disability on account of Diabetes Mellitus Type-II and 30% disability on account of Primary Hypertension, lifelong.
5. In such circumstances, we have held in our decision in Ex Sub Gawas Anil Madso that the respondent would be entitled to disability pension.
6. We do not deem it necessary to reproduce our findings in the said decision, so as not to burden this judgment.
7. We have also been conscious of the fact that we are exercising certiorari jurisdiction over the decision of the AFT and are not sitting in appeal over the said decision.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 17921/2025 KUMAR Signing Da te:2 7.11.2025 20:26:40
Page 5 of 9
8. The parameters of certiorari jurisdiction are delineated in the following passages of Syed Yakoob v K.S. Radhakrishnan6 :
“7. The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Article 226 has been frequently considered by this Court and the true legal position in that behalf is no longer in doubt . A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals: these are cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal acts illegally or properly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity, be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised ( vide Hari Vishnu Kamath v Syed Ahmad Ishaque7 , Nagandra Nath Bora v
6 AIR 1964 SC 477 7 (1954) 2 SCC 881 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 17921/2025 KUMAR Signing Da te:2 7.11.2025 20:26:40
Page 6 of 9
Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals Assam8 and Kaushalya Devi v Bachittar Singh9 .
8. It is, of course, not easy to define or adequately describe what an error of law apparent on the face of the record means. What can be corrected by a writ has to be an error of law; hut it must be such an error of law as can be regarded as one which is apparent on the face of the record. Where it is manifest or clear that the conclusion of law recorded by an inferior Court or Tribunal is based on an obvious mis-interpretation of the relevant statutory provision, or sometimes in ignorance of it, or may be, even in disregard of it, or is expressly founded on reasons which are wrong in law, the said conclusion can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In all these cases, the impugned conclusion should be so plainly inconsistent with the relevant statutory provision that no difficulty is experienced by the High Court in holding that the said error of law is apparent on the face of the record . It may also be that in some cases, the impugned error of law may not be obvious or patent on the face of the record as such and the Court may need an argument to discover the said error; but there can be no doubt that what can be corrected by a writ of certiorari is an error of law and the said error must, on the whole, be of such a character as would satisfy the test that it is an error of law apparent on the face of the record . If a statutory provision is reasonably capable of two constructions and one construction has been adopted by the inferior Court or Tribunal, its conclusion may not necessarily or always be open to correction by a writ of certiorari. In our opinion, it is neither possible nor desirable to attempt either to define or to describe adequately all cases of errors which can be appropriately described as errors of law apparent on the face of the record. Whether or not an impugned error is an error of law and an error of law which is apparent on the face of the record, must always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and upon the nature and scope of the legal provision which is alleged to have been misconstrued or contravened.”
(Emphasis supplied)
9. Within the limited parameters of the certiorari jurisdiction and keeping in view the facts of the case outlined hereinabove, we find no cause to interfere with the impugned judgment of the AFT, which is affirmed in its entirety.
8 AIR 1958 SC 398
9 AIR 1960 SC 1168
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 17921/2025 KUMAR Signing Da te:2 7.11.2025 20:26:40
Page 7 of 9
10. In addition, we find that our view stands fortified by paras 45.1, 46 and 47 of the judgment of the Supreme Court, rendered on 23 April 2025 in Bijender Singh v UOI10 , which may be reproduced thus:
“45.1. Thus, this Court held that essence of the Rules is that a member of the armed forces is presumed to be in sound physical and mental condition at the time of his entry into the service if there is no note or record to the contrary made at the time of such entry. In the event of subsequent discharge from service on medical ground, any deterioration in health would be presumed to be due to military service. The burden would be on the employer to rebut the presumption that the disability suffered by the member was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. If the Medical Board is of the opinion that the disease suffered by the member could not have been detected at the time of entry into service, the Medical Board has to give reasons for saying so. This Court highlighted that the provision for payment of disability pension is a beneficial one which ought to be interpreted liberally. A soldier cannot be asked to prove that the disease was contracted by him on account of military service or was aggravated by the same. The very fact that upon proper physical and other tests, the member was found fit to serve in the army would give rise to a presumption that he was disease free at the time of his entry into service. For the employer to say that such a disease was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, the least that is required to be done is to furnish reasons for taking such a view.
10 2025 SCC OnLine SC 895 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 17921/2025 KUMAR Signing Da te:2 7.11.2025 20:26:40
Page 8 of 9
the time of entry into service that the member suffered from any particular disease, the presumption would be that the member got afflicted by the said disease because of military service. Therefore the burden of proving that the disease is not attributable to or aggravated by military service rest entirely on the employer. Further, any disease or disability for which a member of the armed forces is invalided out of service would have to be assumed to be above 20% and attract grant of 50% disability pension.
11. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine .
12. Compliance with the impugned judgement of the AFT, if not already ensured, be ensured within a period of twelve weeks from today.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
NOVEMBER 26, 2025/yg
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 17921/2025 KUMAR Signing Da te:2 7.11.2025 20:26:40
Page 9 of 9
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the AFT correctly granted the respondent disability pension for Diabetes Mellitus Type-II and Primary Hypertension as attributable to or aggravated by military service.
Whether the High Court, exercising certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226, could interfere with the AFT's findings of fact.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
UOI v Ex Sub Gawas Anil MadsoRelied on¶4
318 (2025) DLT 711 · Who else cites this
UOI v WO Binod Kumar Sah (Retd)Relied on¶4
2025 SCC OnLine Del 2355 · Who else cites this
UOI v EX MWO HFO Bharat TiwariRelied on¶4
2025 SCC OnLine Del 2358 · Who else cites this
Syed Yakoob v K.S. RadhakrishnanExplained¶8
AIR 1964 SC 477 · Who else cites this
Bijender Singh v UOIRelied on¶10
2025 SCC OnLine SC 895 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Union of India & Ors.
670939 Ex JWO Rajendra Prasad Singh
C. Hari Shankar
Om Prakash Shukla
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
