Ex Sgt Akshaya Kumar Pati (Retd) Vs Dr Niten Chandra IAS & Ors.

¶1

$~22,	23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 31, 37, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48
*	IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NE	W DELHI
+	CONT.CAS(C) 1529/2025
(22)	EX SGT AKSHAYA KUMAR PATI (RETD) versus DR NITEN CHANDRA IAS & ORS.	.....Petitioner .....Respondents
+	CONT.CAS(C) 1532/2025
(23)	EX SGT BINOY TD versus DR NITEN CHANDRA IAS AND ORS & ORS.	.....Petitioner .....Respondents
+	CONT.CAS(C) 1543/2025
(24)	EX SGT PRAVAT RAVI versus	.....Petitioner
	DR NITEN CHANDRA IAS AND ORS	.....Respondents
+	CONT.CAS(C) 1544/2025
(25)	EX SGT PRABHAT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA versus DR NITEN CHANDRA IAS AND ORS	.....Petitioner .....Respondents
+	CONT.CAS(C) 1554/2025
(27)	WO DILEEP KUMAR THAKUR RETD. versus DR NITEN CHANDRA IAS & ORS.	.....Petitioner .....Respondents
+	CONT.CAS(C) 1556/2025
(28)	EX SGT RAVINDRA KUMAR versus DR NITEN CHANDRA IAS AND ORS & ORS.	.....Petitioner .....Respondents
+	CONT.CAS(C) 1569/2025
(31)	WO RAMA NAND PANDEY RETD versus DR NITEN CHANDRA IAS AND ORS.	.....Petitioner .....Respondents

¶2

This is a digitally signed order.

¶3

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/03/2026 at 17:11:27

¶4

+ (37)	CONT.CAS(C) 1671/2025 EX MWO (HFO) SHAMBHU NATH JHA, (RE versus SHRI RAJESH KUMAR SINGH AND ANR.	TD).....Petitioner .....Respondents
+	CONT.CAS(C) 1706/2025
(42)	SGT MAHESH KUMAR (RETIRED) versus	.....Petitioner
	SHRI RAJESH KUMAR SINGH AND ANR	.....Respondents
+	CONT.CAS(C) 1708/2025
(43)	EX WO BHAWANI DATT versus	.....Petitioner
	DR NITEN CHANDRA IAS AND ORS & ORS.	.....Respondents
+	CONT.CAS(C) 1714/2025
(44)	EX JWO DL MATWANKAR versus	.....Petitioner
	DR NITEN CHANDRA IAS AND ORS	.....Respondents
+	CONT.CAS(C) 1788/2025
(46)	SGT HARVINDER SINGH NEGI versus	.....Petitioner
	SHRI RAJESH KUMAR SINGH AND ANR.	.....Respondents
+	CONT.CAS(C) 1795/2025
(47)	SGT HRIDESH KUMAR GUPTA (RETIRED) versus SHRI RAJESH KUMAR SINGH AND ANR	.....Petitioner .....Respondents
+	CONT.CAS(C) 1796/2025
(48)	JWO UDAY SANKAR HARI RETIRED versus SHRI RAJESH KUMAR SINGH AND ANR.	.....Petitioner .....Respondents
Prese	nce:
	Mr. Durgesh Kr. Sharma and Mr. Harish Kumar,	Advs. for petitioners
	in item nos.22 to 25, 27 to 35, 43 and 44.

¶5

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/03/2026 at 17:11:27

¶6

Mr. Syed Abdul Haseeb, CGSC and Mohd. Aamir Khan, Adv. for UOI in item no.22.

¶7

Mr. Nishant Gautam, CGSC, Mr. Vineet Negi, Mr. Naman Sharma, Ms. Kavya Shukla and Ms. Theresa, Advs. and Mr. Mrityunjay, Officer, IC, Legal Cell in item no.24.

¶8

Ms. Amrita Prakash, Adv. for R-2 and 3 in item no.24 (through v/c) Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, SC, GNCTD in item no.26.

¶9

Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan, Adv. and Mr. Manvinder Singh, Secretary, Punjabi Academy for R-1 in item nos.26, 33, 34 (through v/c)

¶10

Mr. Kushagra Kumar, SPC, UOI in item no.27.

¶11

Mr. Amit Tiwari, CGSC, Ms. Ayushi Srivastava, Mr. Ayush Tanwar, Mr. Arpan Narwal and Mr. Kushagra Malik, Advs. for UOI in item no.28.

¶12

Mr. Shashank Dixit, CGSC and Mr. Kunal Raj, Adv. for UOI in item no.29 (through v/c)

¶13

Mr. Ankit Raj, SPC, Mr. Digvijay Singh and Captain K. Sharat Kumar, Advs. for respondent in item no.30.

¶14

Mr. Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra, CGSC, Ms. Mrinmayee Sahu, Mr. Tribhuvan, Mr. Abhimanyu Asija, Advs. in item no.32 (through v/c)

¶15

Mr. Raj Kumar, CGSC, Ms. Vidhushi Sah, Mr. Mrityunjay, Ms. Vandana Sachdeava, Ms. Vidhushi Sah, Advs. for respondent in item no.40.

¶16

Mr. Sujeet Kumar Mishra, Adv. for respondent in item no.40 (through v/c)

¶17

Mr. P. S. Singh, CGSC, Mr. Rajnish Sharma, Ms. Shiavangi Sharma and Mr. Pratik, Advs. for respondent in item no.41.

¶18

Mr. Vinay Yadav, CGSC, Ms. Kamna Behrani and Mr. Neeraj Raj, Advs., Mr. Vivek Nagar, GP for respondent in item no.42.

¶19

Mr. Himanshu Pathak, SPC and Mr. Sanjay Pal, GP and Mr. Chetan Sharma, Adv. for respondent in item no.43.

¶20

Ms. Archana Sharma, SPC, UOI in item no.44 (through v/c) Mr. Piyush Gupta, CGSC, Mr. Atishay Jain and Mr. Vishesh Goel, Advs. for respondent in item no.45.

¶21

Mr. Rohan Tripathi, GP, UOI in item no. 46 (through v/c) SGT Mrityunjay, SGT Padam Charan, Air Force, Legal Cell, UOI in item nos.22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31, 37, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48.

¶22

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/03/2026 at 17:11:27

¶23

Ms. Ekta Chouhdary, SPC and Ms. Nasreen Khatoon, GP for UOI in item no.47.

¶24

Mr. Premtosh Mishra, SPC, Ms. Nasreen Khatoon, GP for UOI in item nos.25, 48.

¶25

CORAM:

¶26

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA O R D E R % 11.03.2026

¶27

The present petitions have been filed by the petitioners alleging wilful disobedience of the directions contained in the judgment dated 01.07.2025 passed in W.P(C) 140/2024 and other connected matters. The operative directions therein are as under:

¶28

“79. Considering all the factors together, it is evident that the mere fact that the onset of the disease occurred during a peace area posting is not sufficient to negate the cumulative stress of military service, which can contribute to the development of diseases such as Primary Hypertension, IHD etc. The RMB 's opinion that the onset took place in a peace station and therefore the disease is not attributable to or aggravated by military service cannot be sustained.

¶29

80. Accordingly, we find that the respondents' claim for the disability pension on account of Primary Hypertension, could not be outrightly rejected solely on the basis of the place of the disease's manifestation. In addition thereto, the RMB was under a duty to identify the cause of the disease in its report. In this case, however, it has clearly failed to discharge the onus placed upon it by not providing cogent reasons.

¶30

81. In view of the foregoing analysis and Paragraph 84 of the decision in Ex Sub Gawas Anil Madso (supra), which has been reproduced hereinabove, the matters that pertain to Diabetes Mellitus Type II, wherein the RMB has merely opined that the disease is not attributable to or aggravated by military service, solely based on the fact that the onset was ata peace station, cannot be sustained. The learned Tribunal has rightly allowed such O.As.

¶31

82. A similar reasoning applies uniformly to each disability under consideration in this batch of petitions. We have perused the RMB proceedings, and their findings are inadequate in all these petitions to justify the conclusion that the disability is neither attributable to nor

¶32

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/03/2026 at 17:11:27

¶33

aggravated by military service.

¶34

83. The learned Attorney General has further contended that in cases where the opinions of the RMBs are found to be unreasoned, the matters ought to be remanded for re-evaluation. Furthermore, it is stated that in many of the petitions, the respondents have not exhausted the mandatory remedies available to them in the form of First and Second appeals and have directly filed O.As. before the learned Tribunal.

¶35

84. In ordinary circumstances, we would have agreed with both the above submissions of the learned Attorney General, however, in the present cases, the respondents have been fighting for their entitlement for long and since we have heard the matters at considerable length, it would only be appropriate for this Court to adjudicate them rather than remanding the cases at this stage, which would result in further inconvenience and delay.

¶36

85. In view of the aforesaid, and considering the limited scope of the writ jurisdiction in reviewing the orders of the learned Tribunal, no case has been made out warranting interference by this Court with the decision of the learned Tribunal.

¶37

86. Accordingly, the present writ petitions stand dismissed.”

¶38

Mr. Syed Hussain, learned CGSC submits, on instructions, that in CONT. CAS (C) No. 1529/2025, 1569/2025, 1671/2025, 1706/2025, 1788/2025, 1796/2025, requisite Government sanction letters have been issued and expeditious steps are being taken for issuance of PPO whereupon necessary benefits shall be released to the petitioners.

¶39

It is further submitted that in CONT. CAS (C) No. 1532/2025, 1543/2025, 1544/2025, 1554/2025, 1708/2025, 1714/2025 and 1795/2025 and 1556/2025, the process is underway for implementation of the directions.

¶40

It is submitted that every attempt shall be made to expedite the process and obtain the Government sanction letter and the PPO. It is assured and undertaken that the benefits to which petitioners are entitled in the

¶41

This is a digitally signed order.

¶42

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/03/2026 at 17:11:27

¶43

above mentioned matters, shall be disbursed no later than 12 weeks from today. The said statement is taken on record.

¶44

The present petitions are disposed of, taking on record the aforesaid undertaking/statement.

¶45

In case there is any deficiency/lapse on the part of the respondents, the petitioner shall be entitled to file appropriate application/revive the present petitions.

¶46

SACHIN DATTA, J

¶47

MARCH 11, 2026/ at

¶48

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/03/2026 at 17:11:27

Ex Sgt Akshaya Kumar Pati (Retd) v. Dr Niten Chandra IAS & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ex Sgt Akshaya Kumar Pati (Retd) v. Dr Niten Chandra IAS & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vibha Sharma Vs Keshav Chandra and Ors.

Dragon Boat India and Traditional Sports Federation (Dbi and Tsf), through by Its Secretary General Vs Union of India (Uoi) and Ors.

Renuka Sarkar Vs Ajay Kumar Bhalla & Ors.

Manisha Vs Mahesh Kumar

Dsfdc Employees Welfare Association Vs Prashant Goyal

Smt. Meenakshi Vs Sh. Dharmendra & Ors.

Shane Alam and Anr. Vs Pramila Kumari and Anr.

Anoop Gaur Vs Ashwani Kumar

Dragon Boat India and Traditional Sports Federation (Dbi and Tsf), through by Its Secretary General Vs Union of India (Uoi) and Ors.

Ashish Vs District Magistrate (North-West) & Ors.

Manisha Vs Mahesh Kumar

Wo Rama Nand Pandey Retd Vs Dr Niten Chandra IAS and Ors.

Brajnandan Lohia Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

M/S Aastha Gill Media Technologies LLP Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.