A writ petition challenged an AFT order granting disability pension to a soldier released for primary hypertension diagnosed after over 27 years of service. Relying on its prior decisions and Supreme Court authority on attributability and aggravation, the Court found no error apparent on the face of the AFT record and dismissed the writ.
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.
$~89
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Himanshu Pathak, SPC with Mr. Amit Singh, Adv. with Major Anish Muralidhar, Army
versus
EX NB SUB SUSANTA KAR .....Respondent Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 10.07.2025
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. This petition assails order dated 24 January 2024 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal1 in OA 992/2021 whereby the respondent’s application for grant of disability pension on the ground that he suffers from Primary Hypertension with 30% disability have been allowed by the AFT.
2. The issue is covered by a recent decision rendered by us in UOI v Ex Sub Gawas Anil Madso2 .
1 “the AFT”, hereinafter
2 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2018
W.P.(C) 9514/2025
Page 1 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AAKANSHA SHARMA Signing Da te:1 5.07.2025 11:01:14
3. Nonetheless, we have heard Mr. Himanshu Pathak, learned Senior Panel Counsel 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 Primary Hypertension. From the record, including the proceedings of the Release Medical Board3 , the following facts emerged:
(ii) The respondent, in his self-declaration, specifically declared that he had not been suffering from Primary Hypertension prior to joining the Indian Army. The declaration reads thus:
The correctness of this declaration is not doubted either by the RMB or by the petitioners before the AFT or before this Court.
(iii) The reason regarding the Primary Hypertension suffered by the respondent has not been attributable to military service, as entered by the RMB reads thus:
3 “RMB”, hereinafter
Signature Not VerifiedW.P.(C) 9514/2025 Signed By:AAKANSHA SHARMA Signing Da te:1 5.07.2025 11:01:14
Page 2 of 8
“Primary Hypertension (I-10): Onset in peace location, continued to service in peace location thereafter and as per Para 43 of Chapter VI of GMO (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. Characterising the ailment as an “idiopathic” disorder certainly does not satisfy this requirement. 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:
(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
4 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2355
Signature Not VerifiedW.P.(C) 9514/2025
Page 3 of 8
Signed By:AAKANSHA SHARMA Signing Da te:1 5.07.2025 11:01:14
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) The RMB has certified the respondent as suffering from 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 an appeal over the said decision.
8. The parameters of certiorari jurisdiction are delineated in the
Signature Not VerifiedW.P.(C) 9514/2025
Page 4 of 8
Signed By:AAKANSHA SHARMA Signing Da te:1 5.07.2025 11:01:14
following passages of Syed Yakoob v K.S. Radhakrishnan5 :
“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 Ishaque6 , Nagandra Nath Bora v
5 AIR 1964 SC 477
6 ( 1955 ) 1 SCR 1104
Signature Not VerifiedW.P.(C) 9514/2025
Page 5 of 8
Signed By:AAKANSHA SHARMA Signing Da te:1 5.07.2025 11:01:14
Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals Assam7 and Kaushalya Devi v Bachittar Singh8 .
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
7 (1958) SCR 1240
8 AIR 1960 SC 1168
W.P.(C) 9514/2025
Page 6 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AAKANSHA SHARMA Signing Da te:1 5.07.2025 11:01:14
affirmed in its entirety.
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 UOI9 , 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.
9 2025 SCC OnLine SC 895
Signature Not VerifiedW.P.(C) 9514/2025
Page 7 of 8
Signed By:AAKANSHA SHARMA Signing Da te:1 5.07.2025 11:01:14
Invaliding Medical Board was quite categorical that no disability of the appellant existed before entering service. As would be evident from the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the law has by now crystalized that if there is no note or report of the Medical Board at 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 four weeks from today.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
AJAY DIGPAUL, J.
JULY 10, 2025 sk
Signature Not VerifiedW.P.(C) 9514/2025 Signed By:AAKANSHA SHARMA Signing Da te:1 5.07.2025 11:01:14
Page 8 of 8
2 issues framed by the court
Was a soldier invalided for primary hypertension, not present at entry into service and without a positively identified non-service cause, entitled to disability pension?
Could the High Court, in certiorari jurisdiction, interfere with the AFT's award of disability pension?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
UOI v Ex Sub Gawas Anil MadsoFollowed¶2
2025 SCC OnLine Del 2018 · Who else cites this
UOI v WO Binod Kumar Sah (Retd)Relied on¶5
2025 SCC OnLine Del 2355 · Who else cites this
Syed Yakoob v K.S. RadhakrishnanApplied¶8
AIR 1964 SC 477 · Who else cites this
Bijender Singh v UOIRelied on¶10
2025 SCC OnLine SC 895 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Union of India & Ors.
Ex NB Sub Susanta Kar
C. Hari Shankar
Ajay Digpaul
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
