UNION OF INDIA vs SGT. MAHESH KUMAR VERMA

Judgment text excerpt

$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4073/2025, CM APPL. 18920/2025 & CM APPL. 18921/2025 UNION OF INDIA .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Saroj Bidawat, SPC for UOI. versus SGT. MAHESH KUMAR VERMA .....Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL JUDGMENT (ORAL) % 07.04.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. 1. This writ petition assails the order dated 22 February 2023 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal 1 whereby OA 630/2022, 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 W.P.(C) 4073/2025 Signature Not Verified Page 1 of 4 Signed By:SHILPI Signing Date:09.04.2025 13:00:25 3. We find that the case is fully covered by the judgment rendered by us in UOI v Ex Sub Gawas Anil Madso 2. 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 Board 3, 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 attributable to military service and the onus in that regard lies with the establishment