Writ petition challenging an Armed Forces Tribunal order granting disability pension to a former soldier for Primary Hypertension found 30% for life rounded off to 50%. The court held the dispute covered by its earlier decisions upholding similar AFT orders and dismissed the writ petition.
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.
$~69
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Sr. PC with Ms. Ruchita Srivastava, Adv. for UOI with Major Anish Muralidhar (Army)
versus
EX SUB ASOK M S NO JC 763698H .....Respondent Through: Mr. O.P. Punia and Mr. Ashish Punia, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
%
JUDGMENT (ORAL) 08.12.2025
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. This writ petition assails an order dated 30 October 2023 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal1 whereby the respondent’s prayer for disability pension has been allowed.
2. Disability pension was sought on the ground that the respondent suffered from Primary Hypertension which was found to be 30% for life rounded off to 50%. The onset of the Primary Hypertension was 28 years after the respondent joined the service. No Primary
1 “AFT”, hereinafter Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 18549/2025 KUMAR Signing Da te:1 0.12.2025 18:55:09
Page 1 of 3
Hypertension was noted at the time when the respondent was recruited.
3. The reasoning given by the Release Medical Board for holding that the respondent’s Primary Hypertension was not attributable to or aggravated by service read thus:
“Onset in peace 10 May 2010. No close time association with service in Fd/CI Ops/HAA. No delay in diagnosis or treatment. Hence NANA. (Para 43, CH-VI, GMO-2008)”
4. In 207 similar cases, in which the reasoning of the RMB is substantially the same, including Union of India v. Ex. SGT Manoj K L Retd2 and Union of India v. Rajveender Singh Mallhi3 as well as Union of India v. Ex Sub Gawas Anil Madso4 , we have upheld the order of the AFT and dismissed the writ petition.
5. Those decisions apply, mutatis mutandis , to the present case.
6. We have not been informed that any of these decisions has been stayed or interfered with by the Supreme Court.
7. This dispute is entirely covered by the aforesaid decisions.
8. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
9. Compliance with the order of the AFT be positively ensured
2 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8442
3 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3956
4 318 (2025) DLT 711 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 18549/2025 KUMAR Signing Da te:1 0.12.2025 18:55:09
Page 2 of 3
within six weeks from today.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
DECEMBER 8, 2025 /aky
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 18549/2025 KUMAR Signing Da te:1 0.12.2025 18:55:09
Page 3 of 3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the AFT rightly granted disability pension for Primary Hypertension arising 28 years after joining service despite the RMB's NANA finding.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India v. Ex. SGT Manoj K L RetdFollowed¶4
2025 SCC OnLine Del 8442 · Who else cites this
Union of India v. Rajveender Singh MallhiFollowed¶4
2025 SCC OnLine Del 3956 · Who else cites this
Union of India v. Ex Sub Gawas Anil MadsoFollowed¶4
318 (2025) DLT 711 · Who else cites this
Union of India & Ors.
Ex Sub Asok M S No JC 763698H
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
