Ashish K Dixit, CGSC with Mr. Umar Hashmi, Mr. Harshit and Ms. Iqra Shiekh v. SGT ABHISHEK KUMAR

Judgment

1. This petition assails order dated 7 November 2023 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal1 in OA 1163/2020 whereby the respondent’s application for grant of disability pension on the ground that he suffers from Chronic Angle Closure Glaucoma (BE) with 30%, lifelong, broad banded to 50% has been allowed by the AFT.

2. The issue is covered by a recent decision rendered by one of us (C. Hari Shankar J.) in UOI v Ex Sub Gawas Anil Madso2.

Nonetheless, we have heard Mr. Ashish K Dixit, 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 17:33:58 W.P.(C) 17111/2025

4. The respondent was released in Low Medical Category on his being found to be suffering from Chronic Angle Closure Glaucoma (BE). From the record, including the proceedings of the Release Medical Board3, the following facts emerged: (i) The respondent had served in the Indian Air Force for over 22 years before he was diagnosed as suffering from Chronic Angle Closure Glaucoma (BE). (ii) The respondent, in his self-declaration, specifically declared that he had not been suffering from Chronic Angle Closure Glaucoma (BE) prior to joining the Air Force. The declaration reads thus:

3. 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 petitioner before the AFT or before this Court. (iii) The reason regarding the Chronic Angle Closure Glaucoma (BE) suffered by the respondent has not been attributable to military service, as entered by the RMB reads thus: “Chronic Angle Closure Glaucoma (BE) H40.22: NANA. The disability is insidious in nature. There is no casual relationship between the disability and military service. The stress and strain of military service is not associated with the disability. Onset of the disability is in peace area and Signature Not Verified 3 “RMB”, hereinafter Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:13.11.2025 17:33:58 W.P.(C) 17111/2025 there is no evidence of undue mental or physical stress occasioned by war service. Individual was immediately brought to medical attention on onset of symptoms. There is no evidence of worsening of disability due to military service hence not the disability is neither attributable to nor aggravated by service as per Para 35(a) of Chapter VI of GMO 2008 (Amended)” (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:

5. (a) Was the disability attributable to the individual’s own negligence or misconduct? If Yes, in what way. NO, N/A (v) Regarding para 35 of the Chapter VI of the GMO 2008, we have, in our judgment in Union of India v Parmendra Kumar Singh4, observed thus: “8. We have also seen para 35 of Chapter VI of GMO (Mil. Pen) 2008 to which the opinion of the RMB refers, which reads thus:

35. Glaucoma. (a) Primary and Idiopathic: which may be either acute or chronic. Its onset is generally speaking Signature Not Verified 4 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2290 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:13.11.2025 17:33:58 W.P.(C) 17111/2025 unaffected by service conditions; but exceptionally, an acute attack may be brought on by worry, these were fatigue, or considered to be the result of service, aggravation might have to be conceded. illness and, if any of The onset may be insidious and it may reveal its presence for the first time as an acutely painful eye, but in the absence of evidence of undue mental or physical stress occasioned by war service, it can not be considered that this disease is attributable to or has been aggravated by service factors. (b) Secondary Glaucoma: This may be due to a service trauma and would be attributable. It may be caused be iritis and intra-ocular haemorrhage, and entitlement would, therefore, have to be considered in relation to the underlying cause. It may also be the result of an intra-ocular tumour. In general terms it may be said that, in the great majority of cases there is a disturbance of the intra- ocular circulation to which is frequently added an obstruction to the circulation of the intra-ocular fluids. The factor common to all cases is the increase of intra-ocular pressure. In such cases, therefore, responsible, for these changes or sequelae must be considered in relation to entitlement and not the glaucoma per se." condition which primary (vi) The RMB has certified the respondent as suffering from 30% disability on account of Chronic Angle Closure Glaucoma (BE), for life. (vii) We have also seen the opinion of the medical specialist, which has been annexed in the writ petition. That opinion, too, does not state at any point that the Chronic Angle Closure Glaucoma (BE) from which the respondent was suffering was not attributable to military service. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:13.11.2025 17:33:58 W.P.(C) 17111/2025

5. Thus, we find that even the specialist who examined the respondent did not arrive at any conclusion that the Chronic Angle Closure Glaucoma (BE) from which the respondent suffered was not attributable to military service.

6. In such circumstances, we have held in the 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. Radhakrishnan5: The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High “7. 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 Signature Not Verified 5 AIR 1964 SC 477 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:13.11.2025 17:33:58 W.P.(C) 17111/2025 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 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 Ishaque6, Nagandra Nath Bora v Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals Assam7 and Kaushalya Devi v Bachittar Singh8. the conclusion of It is, of course, not easy to define or adequately describe 8. 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 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 error of law is apparent on the face of the record. It may also be