UNION OF INDIA & ORS. vs MWO JAHANGEER ALAM RETD
$~53
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4553/2025, CM APPL. 21071/2025 & CM APPL. 21072/2025
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …..Petitioners
Through: Mr. Premtosh K. Mishra, CGSC with Mr. Manish Vashist and Ms. Sanya Kalsi, Advs.
versus
MWO JAHANGEER ALAM RETD …..Respondent
Through: Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta and Ms. Devangana Sharma, Advs.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 09.04.2025
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. This writ petition assails the order dated 17 August 2023 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal1 whereby OA 167/2023, 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.
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 attributable to military service and the onus in that regard lies with the establishment.
6. It is only where the claim is made more than 15 years after the officer has retired or discharged from service that the initial onus would be on the officer.
7. In the present case, the claim of the officer has not been made beyond 15 years of his retirement from service.
8. The respondent was found to be suffering from Diabetes Mellitus, 33 years after he joined service. He was certified as suffering from 40% disability for life.
9. The claim of the respondent for disability pension was placed before the RMB. In the personal declaration filed by the respondent before the RMB, he specifically stated that he was not suffering from the ailment before he joined the armed forces. This declaration has not been questioned by the petitioner either before the AFT or before this Court.
10. The reasoning which has been adopted by the petitioner for rejecting the respondents claim and holding that the Diabetes Mellitus Type-II and CAD from which he suffered was not attributable to military service reads thus:
Diabetes Mellitus Type-II- Onset of the disability was on FEB 15 while serving at BIHTA, peace area and was posted to peace station prior to onset. This is a metabolic disease characterized by hyperglycemia due to absolute/relative deficiency of Insulin & there was no delay in diagnosis & no close time association of
stress & strain of service in field/HAA/CIOPs area is established. Hence NANA as per para 26 of Ch-VI of GMO 2008.
CAD-Onset of the disability was on Dec 20 while serving at Hindan, peace station was posted to peace station prior to onset and no close time association with stress & strain of field/HAA/CIOPs & there was no delay in diagnosis or dietary compulsion or Infection/Trauma. Hence NANA as per charter of duties dated 07 Jun 2021.
11. We make it clear that the mere fact that the officer is at a peace posting at the time of onset of the disease or ailment, would not indicate that the ailment was not attributable to military service. In such cases, too, it would be for the RMB to examine the matter in all its perspectives and to give cogent reasons as to why the disease is not to be treated as attributable to military service.
12. This would be all the more so in a case such as the present where the first stage at which the diabetes mellitus was detected was 33 years after the respondent had joined service.
13. In view of the aforesaid, we find that the case is fully covered by the judgment passed by us in Gawas Anil Madso.
14. No case is made for interference with the judgment of the AFT which is affirmed in its entirety.
15. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
16. Compliance with the order of the AFT, if not already made, be ensured within a period of four weeks from today.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
AJAY DIGPAUL, J.
APRIL 9, 2025
dsn
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
1 the AFT, hereinafter
2 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2018
3 RMB, hereinafter
—————
————————————————————
—————
————————————————————
W.P.(C) 4553/2025 Page 1 of 4