Mr. Raj Kumar, CGSC with Ms. Vidushi, Adv v. CDR PC ACHARYA

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA % JUDGMENT (ORAL)

07.11.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. This petition assails order dated 16 July 2024 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal1 in OA 2925/2022 whereby the respondent’s application for grant of disability pension on the ground that he suffers from Cervical Spondylosis with 20%, lifelong, has been allowed by the AFT.

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. Raj Kumar, learned CGSC for the petitioners, and have perused the record. Signature Not Verified 1 “the AFT” hereinafter 2 318 (2025) DLT 711 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:11.11.2025 17:46:49 W.P.(C) 16876/2025

4. The respondent was released in Low Medical Category on his being found to be suffering from “Cervical Spondylosis”. From the record, including the proceedings of the Release Medical Board3, the following facts emerged: (i) The respondent had served in the Indian Navy for over 23 years and 9 months before he was diagnosed as suffering from Cervical Spondylosis. (ii) The respondent, in his self-declaration, specifically declared that he had not been suffering from Cervical Spondylosis prior to joining the Navy. The declaration reads thus:

4. 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. (iii) The reason regarding the Cervical Spondylosis suffered by the respondent has not been attributable to military service, as entered by the RMB reads thus: “Cervical Spondylosis ICD M-47.2,Z -09.0: Constitutional disorder not connected to service.” (iv) We have already held, in our judgment in Gawas Anil Madso, that where the applicant was not suffering from the Signature Not Verified 3 “RMB”, hereinafter Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:11.11.2025 17:46:49 W.P.(C) 16876/2025 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: 5(a). Was the disease/disability attributable to the individual’s own negligence or misconduct? If Yes, in what way. NA (v) The RMB has certified the respondent as suffering from 20% disability on account of Cervical Spondylosis, for life.

5. In such circumstances, we have held in the 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:11.11.2025 17:46:49 W.P.(C) 16876/2025 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 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 the jurisdiction to issue a writ of is, however, no doubt 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 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 Tribunal, and the said points the exclusive jurisdiction of 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 and Appeals Assam6 Commissioner of Hills Division