UNION OF INDIA ORS v. HON'BLE

Judgment

1. This petition assails orders dated 3 July 2024 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal1 in OA 409/2022 whereby the respondent’s application for grant of disability pension on the ground that he suffers from Total Retinal Detachment with Traumatic Cataract with 40%, rounded off to 50%, lifelong, has been allowed by the AFT.

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

Nonetheless, we have heard Mr. Satya Ranjan Swain, learned CGSC for the petitioners, and have perused the record. Signature Not Verified 1 “the AFT”, hereinafter Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:18.11.2025 15:41:39 W.P.(C) 17210/2025

4. The respondent was released in Low Medical Category on his being found to be suffering from Total Retinal Detachment with Traumatic Cataract. 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 23 years before he was diagnosed as suffering from Total Retinal Detachment with Traumatic Cataract. (ii) The respondent, in his self-declaration, specifically declared that he had not been suffering from Total Retinal Detachment with Traumatic Cataract prior to joining the Indian Army. The declaration reads thus:

2.(a.) 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 Total Retinal Detachment with Traumatic Cataract suffered by the respondent has not been attributable to military service, as entered by the RMB reads thus: “Total Retinal Detachment with Traumatic Cataract: As per statement and specialist opinion individual individual injury in 2008. However no sustained head / facial Signature Not Verified 2 318 (2025) DLT 711 3 “RMB”, hereinafter Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:18.11.2025 15:41:39 W.P.(C) 17210/2025 documented evidence of injury in 2008 available. Individual reported for diminution of vision in (Rt) eye in in absence of valid 2016. Hence conceded (NANA) medical/hospitalization documents & Injury report for the initial injury (year 2008).” (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:

2. (a) Was the disease/disability attributable to the individual’s own negligence or misconduct? If Yes, in what way? - No (v) Para 24(c) of the Chapter VI of the GMO 2008, states thus: " 24. Diseases of Retina. ***** (c) Retinal Detachment: Retinal detachment is a degenerative disease. Degeneration is either due to lattice degeneration or myopic Degeneration. Trivial trauma can produce retinal detachment in both these conditions. Physical stress of service e.g. organised games, sports activity, training, PT parade, boxing can precipitate an attack. Hence to concede aggravation is appropriate.” (Emphasis supplied) (vi) The RMB has certified the respondent as suffering from 40% disability on account of Total Retinal Detachment with Signature Not Verified Traumatic Cataract, for life. Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:18.11.2025 15:41:39 W.P.(C) 17210/2025 (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 Total Retinal Detachment with Traumatic Cataract from which the respondent was suffering was not attributable to military service.

5. Thus, we find that even the specialist who examined the respondent did not arrive at any conclusion that the Total Retinal Detachment with Traumatic Cataract from which the respondent suffered was not attributable to military service. Rather, para 24(c) to which the RMB opinion alludes, specifically states that appropriate to concede aggravation.

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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:18.11.2025 15:41:39 W.P.(C) 17210/2025 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