In a significant intervention on service jurisprudence and military pensions, the Delhi High Court examined whether the Union of India could reopen a settled dispute over disability pension, despite a long line of consistent rulings favouring armed forces personnel, raising sharp questions about repetitive litigation and disregard of binding precedent.
The controversy began when the Union of India approached the High Court challenging an order of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) dated 6 September 2023, which had granted disability pension to a retired service officer. The claim was founded on the officer suffering from Primary Hypertension and Diabetes Mellitus Type II, assessed at 30% and 20% respectively for life and rounded off to 50%. While the Medical Board had noted that both conditions surfaced decades after recruitment and at peace stations, the Tribunal had nonetheless ruled in favour of the officer.
The Centre argued that the ailments were neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, relying on the Release Medical Board’s opinion that there was “no stress and strain of field/HAA/CI operations” involved.
The High Court, however, was unimpressed. Calling the challenge a non-starter, the Bench pointed out that the very same reasoning of the Release Medical Board had already been rejected in no fewer than 240 similar cases. Referring to precedents such as Union of India v. CDR Sudesh Kumar Sharma, the Court held that those decisions applied “mutatis mutandis, to the present case.”
In a telling observation, the Bench recorded that it had “not been informed that any of these decisions has been stayed or interfered with by the Supreme Court.” Notably, even the Union’s counsel conceded that the issue was “entirely covered” by existing judgments. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition in limine and directed that compliance with the AFT’s order be ensured within twelve weeks.
Case Title: Union of India and Ors vs. Ex Mwo (Hfo) Anand Singh Chauhan
Case No.: W.P.(C) 19565/2025
Coram: Justice C. Hari Shankar, Justice Om Prakash Shukla
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Shagun Shahi Chugh, Varun Chugh, Kavya Roy Choudhury
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. R.N. Bansal, Baljeet Singh
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :