Dr. Vijendra Singh Mahndiyan, CGSC with Major Anish Muralidhar v. EX HAV RAMJAS

Judgment

1. This petition assails order dated 1 August 2023 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal1 in OA 1235/2022 whereby the respondent’s application for grant of disability pension on the ground that he suffers from Coronary Artery Disease-AWMI Non obstructive CAD @ 30% for life, rounded off to 50% 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 Dr. Vijendra Singh Mahndiyan, 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:13.11.2025 10:57:33 W.P.(C) 17017/2025

4. The respondent was released in Low Medical Category on his being found to be suffering from CAD. From the record, including the proceedings of the Release Medical Board3, the following facts emerged: (i) The respondent had served in the Indian Army for over 26 years before he was diagnosed as suffering from CAD. (ii) The respondent, in his self-declaration, specifically declared that he had not been suffering from CAD prior to joining the Army. The declaration reads thus:

2. Did you suffer from any disability 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 CAD suffered by the respondent has not been attributable to military service, as entered by the RMB reads thus: (STK+) “CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE – AWMI NON OBSTRUCTIVE CAD (ICD NO.125.1) : Attributability can not be conceded as individual had not been serving in Field/HAA/CI Ops. during the onset and aggravation could not be conceded as individual has no diabetes mellitus/ vasculitis and has not been posted to Field/HAA/CI Ops since the time of onset of disease as per GMO 2008 Chapt VI Para 47.” of Hypertension/ diagnosis Signature Not Verified 3 “RMB”, hereinafter Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:13.11.2025 10:57:33 W.P.(C) 17017/2025 (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 respondent was 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: 2(a) Was individual’s own negligence or misconduct? If yes, in what way. NO disease/disability attributable (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:— Ischaemic Heart Disease (IHD).

47. 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 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 Signature Not Verified 4 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2549 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:13.11.2025 10:57:33 W.P.(C) 17017/2025 nervous established system autonomic disturbances precipitated by emotions, stress and strain, through the agency of catecholamines affect the lipid response, blood pressure, increased platelet aggregation, produce ECG abnormality and arrhythmias. 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 from this, lack of 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. family. Apart security for Entitlement decided as follows:— in Ischemic heart disease will be (a) Attributability will be conceded where : A myocardial infarction arises during service in close time relationship to a service compulsion involving severe trauma or 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. (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 own merits Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:13.11.2025 10:57:33 W.P.(C) 17017/2025 aggravation will be conceded in these cases. Also 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, service compulsions. submarines There would 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 indulging in risk factors e.g. such as smoking. aggravation can be conceded in such cases.” attributability Neither (vi) The RMB has certified the respondent as suffering from 30% disability on account of CAD, 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. Radhakrishnan5: Signature Not Verified 5 AIR 1964 SC 477 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:13.11.2025 10:57:33 W.P.(C) 17017/2025 “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 is, however, no doubt 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 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 Ishaque6, Nagandra Nath Bora v and Appeals Assam7 Commissioner and Kaushalya Devi v Bachittar Singh8. of Hills Division

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.