Delhi High Court
Union Of India & Ors. vs Ex Spr (Macp Nk) P Arun Kumar on 11 November, 2024
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~72
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 11th November, 2024
+ W.P.(C) 15632/2024
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Archana Gaur, SPC with
Ms. Ridhima Gaur and Ms.
Ring Baliyan and Major Anish
Murlidhar.
versus
EX SPR (MACP NK) P ARUN KUMAR .....Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 65591/2024
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 15632/2024, CM APPL. 65590/2024
3. This petition has been filed challenging the Order dated
22.11.2023 passed by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal
Bench, New Delhi (in short, „AFT‟) in Original Application (in short
"OA") No. 1158/2021 titled Ex SPR (MACP Nk) P Arun Kumar v.
Union of India and Ors., allowing the Original Application filed by
the respondent herein and directing as under:-
"29. In the circumstances, the OA 1158/2021 is allowed
and the applicant is held entitled to the grant of the
disability element of pension qua the disability of the
applicant i.e. "MODERATE DEPRESSIVE EPISODE
(F32.1)" assessed at 20% for life, which is directed to be
broad banded to 50% for life in terms of the verdict of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs Ram Avtar
decided on 10.12.2014 in Civil Appeal no. 418 of 2012
with effect from the date of his discharge and the
respondents are directed to issue the corrigendum PPO
with directions to the respondents to pay the arrears
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order, failing which, the respondents would
be liable to pay interest @6% p.a. on the arrears due from
the date of this order."
4. The respondent had filed the above petition stating therein that
he had been enrolled in the Indian Army (Madras Engineer Group) on
16.04.2004. While serving with the 14 Engineer Regiment located at
Jodhpur, Rajasthan, which was a „peace‟ location, the respondent got
admitted to Military Hospital, Jodhpur on 07.07.2008, and was
diagnosed as suffering from a „Moderate Depressive Episode (F
32.1)‟. Subsequently, he was placed in a low medical category S3 (T-
24) with effect from 18.08.2008 for six months. He was then placed in
the medical category S2 (Permanent) with effect from 21.06.2018 by
the Military Hospital, Secunderabad, and continued to be in the said
medical category till his discharge from service on 31.05.2020.
Though the respondent was granted service pension, he was denied the
disability element of pension as his disability was opined to be not
attributable to or aggravated by military service. The respondent did
not file an appeal against the said findings though submitted a
representation. He, thereafter, filed the abovementioned OA before the
learned AFT, which has been allowed by the Impugned Order.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned
AFT has erred in ignoring the findings of the Medical Board, which
had opined that the disability suffered by the respondent was neither
attributable to nor aggravated by Military Service. She submits that,
therefore, the respondent was not entitled to the disability element of
pension as provided in the amended Entitlement Rules for Casualty
Pensionary Awards to Armed Forces Personnel, 2008. She submits
that the learned AFT has also erred in placing reliance upon the
Judgment of the Supreme Court in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of
India & Ors., (2013) 7 SCC 316.
6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners.
7. In the present case, apart from relying upon the Judgment of the
Supreme Court in Dharamvir Singh (supra), the learned AFT has
taken note of the posting profile of the respondent, which is
reproduced hereunder:-
Ser From To Unit Place/Ship P / F
No (HAA /
Ops / Sea
Service) /
Mod Fd
(a) 16 APR 15 SEP TRG BN BANGALORE PEACE
2004 2006 III. MEG &
Centre
(b) 16 SEP 31 AUG 14 ENGR LEH (J&K) FIELD
2006 2007 REGT
(c) 01 SEP 08 SEP 14 ENGR JODHPUR PEACE
2007 2010 REGT
(d) 09 SEP 30 JUN TRG BN BANGALORE PEACE
2010 2013 III. MEG &
Centre
(e) 01 JUL 19 JUL 14 ENG ASSAM SEMI
2013 2014 REGT FIELD
(f) 20 JUL 09 NOV 38 ASLT PATIALA PEACE
2014 2014 ENGR
REGT
(g) 10 NOV 11 SEP 38 ASLT CHANDIMANDIR PEACE
2014 2015 ENGR CANTT
REGT
(h) 12 SEP 14 AUG 14 ENGR SECUNDERABAD PEACE
2015 2018 REGT
(i) 15 AUG 31 AUG 14 ENGR SRINAGAR FIELD
2018 2018 REGT
(j) 01 SEP TILL 16 ENGR MEERUT CANTT PEACE
2018 DATE BR REGT
(PMS)
8. The learned AFT has also noted that the onset of the disability
of the respondent was noticed on 11.04.2008, when he was posted at a
„peace‟ location, however, it was immediately after his deployment at
Leh (Jammu & Kashmir), which is a field area, from 16.09.2006 to
31.08.2007. The learned AFT also relied upon paragraph 54 of the
GMO (Military Pension), 2008 to observe that the aggravation of the
disability of the respondent in the instant case, would have to be held
due to military service.
9. We are of the opinion that the learned AFT has, therefore, taken
all relevant considerations into account while adjudicating the
abovementioned OA filed by the respondent and no infirmity can be
found in its conclusion. We do not have to be reminded that we are not
sitting as an Appellate Court against the orders passed by the learned
AFT. There is no legal infirmity shown to us in the Impugned Order.
10. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the present petition. The
same, along with the pending application, is accordingly dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
SHALINDER KAUR, J
NOVEMBER 11, 2024/ss/sk/SJ
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
