Dismissed

Union of India & Ors. v. Ex Ls (Uw) Raman Singh

Delhi HC11 Jul 2025W.P.(C)/9603/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the denial of disability pension for primary hypertension. Relying on numerous precedents where serving in a peace area was insufficient to negate service attribution, the Court held the petitioner could not re-agitate settled issues. Dismissed in limine.

What did the court decide?

The present petition is dismissed in limine without any discussion on merits or interference with the impugned order.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Ex Ls (Uw) Raman Singh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~31

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 9603/2025, CM APPL. 40366/2025, CM APPL. 40367/2025 & CM APPL. 40368/2025

¶4

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Shashank Bajpai, CGSC.

¶5

versus

¶6

EX LS (UW) RAMAN SINGH .....Respondent Through:

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL

¶9

¶10

JUDGMENT (ORAL) 11.07.2025

¶11

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

¶12

1. We are, at the outset, constrained to note that, though the points raised by Mr. Bajpai, learned Counsel for the Union of India, have been considered and rejected by us in umpteen judgments, and several learned Counsel for the Union of India have conceded this position in many number of petitions which have come before us earlier to this, Mr. Bajpai still insists on re-arguing the same point.

¶13

2. The issue involved is with respect to the respondent’s entitlement to disability pension on the ground of primary hypertension, for which he was assessed as suffering from disability @ 30% for life.

¶14

3. The petitioner joined service with the Navy on 27 January 2004.

¶15

Signature Not Ver ified

¶16

Signed By:AAKANSHAW.P.(C) 9603/2025 SHARMA Signing Da te:1 7.07.2025 10:55:01

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

The onset of his primary hypertension was admittedly eight years thereafter, and it was seven years thereafter that he was discharged from service on that ground. It is an admitted position that, at the time of his induction in service, there is no recording of the petitioner suffering from primary hypertension.

¶19

4. The case of the petitioner was referred to the Release Medical Board to consider his case for grant of disability pension. The reasoning of the Medical Board is reproduced in para 5 of the impugned judgment and reads thus:

¶20

“5. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand places reliance on the reasons opined in Part V in opinion of the Medical Board to the effect :-

¶21

PART V

¶22

OPINION OF THE MEDICAL BOARD

¶23

1.Casual Relationship of the disability with service conditions or otherwise

¶24

Disability	Attributable service (Y/N)	Aggravated by service (Y/N)	Not connected with service (Y/N)	Reasons/cause/speci fic conditions and period in service.
PRIMARY HYPERTENSION	NO	NO	YES	Onset of ID: Jan 2012. While serving in peace area (Delhi). There is no close time association with HAA/CI Ops area and Fd. Hence ID conceded as neither attributable nor aggravated by service as per Para 43, Chapter VI, GMO's (Mil Pension), 2008 amendment.

¶25

5. Mr. Bajpai submits that the reasons adduced by the Medical Board are sufficient to make out a case to justify denial of disability

¶26

Signature Not Ver ified Signed By:AAKANSHAW.P.(C) 9603/2025 SHARMA Signing Da te:1 7.07.2025 10:55:01

¶27

Page 2 of 4

¶28

pension to the petitioner.

¶29

6. Identical findings of the Medical Board have been dealt with, by us, in the following cases - Union of India v SGT Harvinder Singh Negi¹ , Union of India v Koutharapu Srinivasa² , Union of India v Jyoti Kumar Singh³ , Union of India v Sheo Narayan Prasad⁴ , Union of India v Captain Sanjay Kumar⁵ , Union of India v EX JWO Arvind Kumar⁶ , Union of India v JWO (Retd) Akhilesh Kumar Jha⁷ , Union of India v Kamlesh Kumar Singh⁸ , Union of India v CDR Sudesh Kumar Sharma Retd.⁹ , Union of India v Santosh Kumar Bisoi¹⁰ and several others. We have observed in all these decisions that the serving in peace area by an officer, absence of close association with HAA/CIOPS area and Field service do not make out a case to hold that the hypertension was not attributable to or aggravated by service. We have also dealt with para 43 in Chapter VI of the applicable Guidelines in these decisions and had pointed out that para 43(2) does not justify any such finding.

¶30

7. The view that has been taken by us in the aforesaid line of decision has now been followed by a Coordinate Bench in UOI v Balbir Singh¹¹ .

¶31

1 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4806

¶32

2 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4292

¶33

3 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4222

¶34

4 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3973

¶35

5 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4487

¶36

6 Judgment Dated 14 May 2025 in WP C 6417/2025

¶37

7 Judgment Dated 30 May 2025 in WP C 8077/2025

¶38

8 Judgment Dated 27 May 2025 in WP C 7456/2025

¶39

9 Judgment Dated 8 July 2025 in WP C 6452/2025

¶40

10 Judgment Dated 22 May 2025 in WP C 7027/2025

¶41

Signature Not Ver ified Signed By:AAKANSHAW.P.(C) 9603/2025 SHARMA Signing Da te:1 7.07.2025 10:55:01

¶42

Page 3 of 4

¶43

8. Besides, the Supreme Court has also in its decision in Dharamvir Singh v UOI and Bijender Singh v UOI¹² emphasised the fact that, where the candidate was not suffering from the ailment detected at the time when he was inducted in the service and where there is no other cause attributed for the disability, the disability has to be treated as attributable to service.

¶44

9. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the petitioner was not justified in seeking to re-canvas, before us, issues of fact and law which stand squarely covered against it.

¶45

10. The issue is squarely covered by the aforesaid decisions.

¶46

11. We are also of the view that, once the issue has been covered by several judgments of this Bench, the Supreme Court, and now even by the judgment of a Coordinate Bench, compelling Armed Forces personnel to agitate before the Court for obtaining the disability pension which is their just entitlement is completely unjustified.

¶47

12. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine .

¶48

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

¶49

AJAY DIGPAUL, J.

¶50

JULY 11, 2025 sk

¶51

11 Judgment dated 1 July 2025 in WP C 140/2024

¶52

12 2025 SCC OnLine SC 895

¶53

Signature Not Ver ified Signed By:AAKANSHAW.P.(C) 9603/2025 SHARMA Signing Da te:1 7.07.2025 10:55:01

¶54

Page 4 of 4

Union of India & Ors. v. Ex Ls (Uw) Raman Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India & Ors. v. Ex Ls (Uw) Raman Singh

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

Parvesh Kumar Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Pfizer Limited through Constituted Attorney Mr Samir Kazi Vs Government of National Capital Territory, Delhi & Ors.

Davinder Pal Singh Vs Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee & Ors.

Cdr Yogesh Mahla Vs Union of India & Ors.

Rakesh Kumar Jat Vs Commissioner of Customs

Ushodaya Enterprizes Private Limited and Anr. Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.

August Attorneys LLP Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sh. Vineet Airy & Anr. Vs Delhi Cantonment Board

Cdr Yogesh Mahla Vs Union of India & Ors.

Gulale Balaso Rangrao and Anr. Vs Shri Govind Mohan and Ors.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Service No 785407 Ex Sgt Rajesh Kumar (Ex Sm)

Praveen Kumar Pandey Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mold Tek Packaging Limited Vs Pronton Plast Pack Pvt. Ltd.

Sarita and Ors. Vs University of Delhi and Ors.