Delhi High Court
Union Of India & Ors vs Shardadevi Widow Of Late T Ashok Kumar ... on 22 April, 2025
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~78
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1611/2025 & CM APPL. 7828/2025
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ajay Jain, SPC with
Mr. Krishna Sharma, Mr. Manoj Gautam,
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. M.N. Mishra,
Ms. Bijay Lakshmi, Mr. Akul Chalia and
Mr. Harshit Batra, Advs.
versus
SHARDADEVI WIDOW OF LATE T ASHOK KUMAR
THROUGH ITS LR ROHAN SINGH .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Manoj Jain and
Ms. Devangna Sharma, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 22.04.2025
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. This writ petition assails order dated 29 February 2024, passed
by the Armed Forces Tribunal1 in OA 1308/2019 whereby the
respondent's application for grant of disability pension on the ground
that he suffers from CVA and Primary Hypertension with composite
80% disability have been allowed by the AFT.
"AFT", hereinafter
2. The issue is covered by a recent decision rendered by us in UOI
v Ex Sub Gawas Anil Madso2.
3. Nonetheless, we have heard Mr. Ajay Jain, learned Counsel for
the petitioners, and have perused the record.
4. The respondent was released in Low Medical Category on his
being found to be suffering from CVA and Primary hypertension.
From the record, including the proceedings of the Release Medical
Board3, the following facts emerged:
(i) The respondent had served in the Indian Air Force for
over 35 years and 8 days before he was diagnosed as suffering
from CVA and Primary Hypertension.
(ii) The respondent, in his self-declaration, specifically
declared that he had not been suffering from CVA and Primary
Hypertension prior to joining the Air Force. The declaration
reads thus:
3. Did you suffer from any disability mentioned in question
2 or anything like it before joining the Armed Forces? If so
give details and dates. NO
The correctness of this declaration is not doubted either by the
RMB or by the petitioners before the AFT or before this Court.
2025 SCC OnLine Del 2018
"RMB", hereinafter
(iii) The reason regarding the CVA and Primary Hypertension
suffered by the respondent has not been attributable to military
service, as entered by the RMB reads thus:
"CVA(Fresh) 163.9: Neurological deficit with onset at
peace station (Delhi) while on leave. There is no delay in
diagnosis & treatment, no close time association with stress
and strain of service. The disability is considered as neither
attributable nor aggravated by service as per Para 14 of
Chap-VI of GMO 2008.
Primary Hypertension (Fresh): The disability is a lifestyle
disorder with onset at peace station (Delhi). There is no
delay in diagnosis & treatment, no close time association
with stress and strain of service. The disability is
considered as neither attributable nor aggravated by service
as per Para 43 of Chap-VI of GMO 2008."
(iv) The Commanding Officer's certificate specifically states
that the respondent was not responsible, owing to any act or
omission of his, for the ailment from which he was suffering.
The entry in that regard reads as under:
5(a) Was the disease/disability attributable to the
individual's own negligence or misconduct? If yes, in
what way?) NO
(v) The RMB has certified the respondent as suffering from
composite 80% disability on account of CVA and Primary
Hypertension, lifelong.
(vi) We have also seen the report of the specialist consultant
who had examined the respondent. The report does not opine,
anywhere, that the CVA and Primary Hypertension from which
the respondent was suffering was not attributable to military
service.
5. Thus, we find that even the specialist who examined the
respondent did not arrive at any conclusion that the CVA and Primary
Hypertension from which the respondent suffered was not attributable
to military service.
6. In such circumstances, we have held in our decision in Ex Sub
Gawas Anil Madso that the respondent would be entitled to disability
pension.
7. We do not deem it necessary to reproduce our findings in the
said decision, so as not to burden this judgment.
8. We have also been conscious of the fact that we are exercising
certiorari jurisdiction over the decision of the AFT and are not sitting
in appeal over the said decision.
9. The parameters of certiorari jurisdiction are delineated in the
following passages of Syed Yakoob v K.S. Radhakrishnan4:
"7. The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High
Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Article 226 has been
1963 SSC OnLine SC 24
frequently considered by this Court and the true legal position in
that behalf is no longer in doubt. A writ of certiorari can be issued
for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or
tribunals: these are cases where orders are passed by inferior
courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a
result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can similarly be
issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court
or Tribunal acts illegally or properly, as for instance, it decides a
question without giving an opportunity, be heard to the party
affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing
with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. There
is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of
certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it
is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation
necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior
Court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot
be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law
which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a
writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be.
In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of
certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said
finding, the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible
and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible
evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a
finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as
an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In
dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear
in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be
challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground
that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the
Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned
finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and
the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within
the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points
cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is within these limits that
the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 to
issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised (vide Hari
Vishnu Kamath v Syed Ahmad Ishaque5, Nagandra Nath Bora v
Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals Assam6
and Kaushalya Devi v Bachittar Singh7.
8. It is, of course, not easy to define or adequately describe
(1955) 1 SCR 1104
(1958) SCR 1240
AIR 1960 SC 1168
what an error of law apparent on the face of the record means.
What can be corrected by a writ has to be an error of law; hut it
must be such an error of law as can be regarded as one which is
apparent on the face of the record. Where it is manifest or clear
that the conclusion of law recorded by an inferior Court or
Tribunal is based on an obvious mis-interpretation of the relevant
statutory provision, or sometimes in ignorance of it, or may be,
even in disregard of it, or is expressly founded on reasons which
are wrong in law, the said conclusion can be corrected by a writ of
certiorari. In all these cases, the impugned conclusion should be so
plainly inconsistent with the relevant statutory provision that no
difficulty is experienced by the High Court in holding that the said
error of law is apparent on the face of the record. It may also be
that in some cases, the impugned error of law may not be obvious
or patent on the face of the record as such and the Court may need
an argument to discover the said error; but there can be no doubt
that what can be corrected by a writ of certiorari is an error of law
and the said error must, on the whole, be of such a character as
would satisfy the test that it is an error of law apparent on the face
of the record. If a statutory provision is reasonably capable of two
constructions and one construction has been adopted by the inferior
Court or Tribunal, its conclusion may not necessarily or always be
open to correction by a writ of certiorari. In our opinion, it is
neither possible nor desirable to attempt either to define or to
describe adequately all cases of errors which can be appropriately
described as errors of law apparent on the face of the record.
Whether or not an impugned error is an error of law and an error of
law which is apparent on the face of the record, must always
depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and upon the
nature and scope of the legal provision which is alleged to have
been misconstrued or contravened."
(Emphasis supplied)
10. Within the limited parameters of the certiorari jurisdiction and
keeping in view the facts of the case outlined hereinabove, we find no
cause to interfere with the impugned judgment of the AFT, which is
affirmed in its entirety.
11. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.
12. Compliance with the impugned judgment of the AFT, if not
already ensured, be ensured within a period of four weeks from today.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
AJAY DIGPAUL, J.
APRIL 22, 2025/AS
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
