Mr. N.K. Aggarwal, SPC with Ms. Sanjana Antil Adv. and Major Anish Muralidhar v. EX SUB

Judgment

1. This petition assails order dated 15 April 2024 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal1 in OA 1113/2018 whereby the respondent’s application for grant of disability pension on the ground that he suffers from IHD (Anterior Myocardial Infarction) and NIDDM, compositely assessed @ 40% for life, rounded off to 50% disability has been allowed by the AFT.

2. Mr. N.K. Aggarwal, learned SPC for the Union of India restricts the challenge in this petition to the benefit of broad-banding granted to the respondent. Signature Not Verified 1 “the AFT”, hereinafter Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:29.10.2025 18:18:36 W.P.(C) 16298/2024

3. The issue is covered by a recent decision rendered by us in UOI v Ex Sub Gawas Anil Madso2.

4. Nonetheless, we have heard Mr. N.K. Aggarwal, learned SPC for the petitioners, and have perused the record.

5. The respondent was released in Low Medical Category on his being found to be suffering from IHD (Anterior Myocardial Infarction) and NIDDM. From the record, including the proceedings of the Release Medical Board3, the following facts emerged: (i) The respondent had served in the Army for over 18 years before he was diagnosed as suffering from IHD and NIDDM. (ii) The respondent, in his self-declaration, specifically declared that he had not been suffering from IHD (Anterior Myocardial Infraction) and NIDDM prior to joining the Army. 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 petitioner before the AFT or before this Court. (iii) The reason regarding the IHD (Anterior Myocardial Infraction) and NIDDM suffered by the respondent has not been Signature Not Verified 2 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2018 3 “RMB”, hereinafter Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:29.10.2025 18:18:36 W.P.(C) 16298/2024 attributable to military service, as entered by the RMB reads thus: “IHD: Constitutional disease NIDDM: Constitutional disease” (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: 3(a) Was the disability attributable to the individual’s own negligence or misconduct? If so, in what way? NA (v) Regarding para 47 of Chapter VI of the GMO 2008, we have, in our judgment in Union of India v. Dharmendra Prasad4 observed thus: “10.2 We have seen para 47 of the 2008 Guidelines, which read as under:—

47. Ischaemic Heart Disease (IHD). IHD is a spectrum of clinical disorders which includes asymptomatic IHD, chronic stable angina, unstable angina, acute myocardial infarction and sudden cardiac death (SCD) occurring as a result of the process of atherosclerosis. Plaque fissuring and rupture is followed by deposition of thrombus on the Signature Not Verified 4 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2549 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:29.10.2025 18:18:36 W.P.(C) 16298/2024 atheromatous plaque and a variable degree of occlusion of the coronary artery. A total occlusion results in myocardial infarction in the territory of the artery occluded. Prolonged stress and strain hastens atherosclerosis by triggering of neurohormonal mechanism and autonomic storms. It is now well established system disturbances precipitated by emotions, stress and strain, through the agency of catecholamines affect the lipid response, blood pressure, increased platelet aggregation, heart and produce ECG abnormality and arrhythmias. autonomic nervous The service in field and high altitude areas apart from physical hardship imposes considerable mental stress of solitude and separation from family leaving the individual tense and anxious as quite often separation entails running of separate establishment, financial crisis, disturbance of child education and lack of security for family. Apart from this, compulsory group living restricts his freedom of activity. These factors jointly and severally can become a chronic source of mental stress and strain precipitating an attack of IHD. IHD arising in while serving in Field area/HAA/CI Ops area or during OPS in an indl who was previously in SHAPE-I will be considered as attributable to mil service. Entitlement in Ischemic heart disease will be decided as follows:— (a) Attributability will be conceded where : A myocardial infarction arises during service in close time relationship to a service compulsion trauma or involving severe exceptional mental, emotional or physical strain, provided that the interval between the incident and the development of symptoms is approximately 24 to 48 hours. IHD arising in while serving in Field area/HAA/CI Ops area or during OPS in an indl who was previously in SHAPE-I will be considered as attributable to mil service. Attributability will also be conceded when the underlying disease is either embolus or thrombus arising out of trauma in case of boxers and surgery, infectious diseases. E.g. Infective endocarditis, exposure to HAA, extreme heat. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:29.10.2025 18:18:36 W.P.(C) 16298/2024 (b) Aggravation will be conceded in cases in which there is evidence of:— IHD occurring in a setting of hypertension, diabetes and vasculitis, entitlement can be judged on its own merits and only aggravation these cases. Also will be conceded aggravation may be conceded in persons having been diagnosed as IHD are required to perform duties in high altitude areas, field areas, counter insurgency areas, ships and submarines due to service compulsions. There would be cases where neither immediate nor prolonged exceptional stress and strain of service is evident. In such cases the disease may be assumed to be the result of biological factors, heredity and way of life such as indulging in risk factors e.g. smoking. Neither attributability nor aggravation can be conceded in such cases.” (vi) Regarding para 26 of the Chapter VI of the GMO 2008, we have, in our judgment in UOI v EX MWO HFO Bharat Tiwari5, observed thus: “11. Para 26 of the Chapter VI of the GMO 2008, vivisected into its individual components, specifies that, while dealing with diabetes mellitus: (i) DM is a metabolic disease, (ii) 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, (v) DM Type II would be conceded aggravated if onset occurs serving in Fields/CIOPS/HAA and prolonged afloat service, and Signature Not Verified 5 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2358 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:29.10.2025 18:18:36 W.P.(C) 16298/2024 (vi) Diabetes secondary to chronic pancreatitis due to alcohol dependence and gestational diabetes should not be considered attributable to service.” (vii) The RMB has certified the respondent as suffering from 30% composite disability on account of IHD and NIDDM.

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. Radhakrishnan6: “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 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 Signature Not Verified 6 AIR 1964 SC 477 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:29.10.2025 18:18:36 W.P.(C) 16298/2024 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 Ishaque7, Nagandra Nath Bora v Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals Assam8 and Kaushalya Devi v Bachittar Singh9.

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 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