CGSC, Mrs. Annu Singh, Adv., Mr. Rajneesh K Sharma, Adv Ms. Minakshi Singh, Adv v. EX PO EL P RAJ KUMAR SAH

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA % JUDGMENT (ORAL) 31.07.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. This petition assails order dated 14 July 2023 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal1 in OA 1248/2019 whereby the respondent’s application for grant of disability pension on the ground that he suffers from Diabetes Mellitus Type-II2 at 20% rounded off to 50% has been allowed by the AFT relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dharamvir Singh v UOI3.

2. The issue is covered by a recent decision rendered by us in UOI v Ex Sub Gawas Anil Madso4. 1 “the AFT”, hereinafter 2 “DM-II”, hereinafter 3 (2013) 7 SCC 316 4 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2018 W.P.(C) 11300/2025

3. Nonetheless, we have heard Mr. P S Singh, learned CGSC 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 DM-II rounded off to 50% for life. From the record, including the proceedings of the Release Medical Board5, the following facts emerged: (i) The respondent had served in the Indian Navy for over 14 years before he was diagnosed as suffering from DM-II. (ii) The respondent, in his self-declaration, specifically declared that he had not been suffering from DM-II prior to joining the Indian Navy. The declaration reads thus:

2. Did service? (Y/N/Could be) NO the disability exist before entering The correctness of this declaration is not doubted either by the RMB or by the petitioner before the AFT or before this Court. (iii) The reason regarding the DM-II suffered by respondent has not been attributable to military service, as entered by the RMB reads thus: “TYPE II DIABETES MELLITUS ICD E11: Not Aggravated by service vide para 26 chapter VI of GMO-2008 and HQW/NC Letter ML/8540/5/9/policy dated 27 Jan 17. 5 “RMB”, hereinafter W.P.(C) 11300/2025 (iv) We have already held, in our judgment in Gawas Anil Madso, that where the applicant was not suffering from the ailment at the time of entry into service, the RMB is required to positively identify the cause for the ailment, to justify a finding that it is not attributable to military service. 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: (a) Was the disability attributable 2. individual’s own negligence or misconduct (If yes, in what way?) No (v) Regarding para 26 of the Chapter VI of the GMO 2008, we have, in our judgment in UOI v EX MWO HFO Bharat Tiwari6, observed thus: “11. Para 26 of the Chapter VI of the GMO 20087, vivisected into its individual components, specifies that, while dealing with diabetes mellitus: (i) (ii) DM is a metabolic disease, DM is characterised by hyperglycaemia, (iii) DM is of two types, Type I and Type II with the physiological and pathological reason for the arising of the disease, (iv) Secondary diabetes is stated to be also attributable to drugs or trauma to pancreas or brain surgery or otherwise, as well as to diseases of the pituitary, thyroid and adrenal gland, 6 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2358 W.P.(C) 11300/2025 (v) DM Type II would be conceded aggravated if onset occurs serving in Fields/CIOPS/HAA and prolonged afloat service, and Diabetes secondary to chronic pancreatitis (vi) due to alcohol dependence and gestational diabetes should not be considered attributable to service.” (vi) The RMB has certified the respondent as suffering from 20% disability on account of DM-II, rounded off to 50% lifelong.

5. In such circumstances, we have held in our decision in Ex Sub Gawas Anil Madso that the respondent would be entitled to disability pension.

6. We do not deem it necessary to reproduce our findings in the said decision, so as not to burden this judgment.

7. 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.

8. The parameters of certiorari jurisdiction are delineated in the following passages of Syed Yakoob v K.S. Radhakrishnan7: “7. The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Article 226 has been 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 7 AIR 1964 SC 477 W.P.(C) 11300/2025 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 Ishaque8, Nagandra Nath Bora v Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals Assam9 and Kaushalya Devi v Bachittar Singh10.

8. It is, of course, not easy to define or adequately describe 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