UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY & ORS. vs EX- LME DHEERAJ KUMAR SINGH(NO. 134719-F)

Judgment text excerpt

$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3865/2025 & CM APPL. 17928/2025, 17929/2025, 17930/2025 UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Amrita Prakash, CGSC with Mr. Vishal Ashwani Mehta, Advocate versus EX- LME DHEERAJ KUMAR SINGH (NO. 134719-F) .....Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL JUDGMENT (ORAL) % 04.04.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. 1. This writ petition assails the order dated 5 July 2023 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal1 whereby OA 233/2019, filed by the respondent has been allowed. The AFT has held the respondent to be entitled to disability pension. 2. Aggrieved thereby, the UOI has approached this Court by means of the present writ petition. 1 “the AFT”, hereinafter WP(C) 3865/2025 Page 1 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:09.04.2025 12:57:03 3. We find that the case is fully covered by the judgment rendered by us in UOI v Ex Sub Gawas Anil Madso2. 4. We have, in the said petition, after considering the law that is developed in this regard over the years, held that the primordial consideration which has to be borne in mind in such cases is whether, at the time of entry into military service, the concerned officer was suffering from the ailment which was detected later. If the onset of the ailment was during military service, then, unless there are clear and categorical reasons adduced by the Release Medical Board3, explaining as to why the ailment is not to be treated as attributable to military service, the presumption would lie in favour of the officer. 5. We have also noted that, under Rule 7 of the 2008 Guidelines which are presently holding the field, the officer is not required to establish that the ailment is