Mr. K.C. Dubey, SPC v. EX SGT SUBIR DANDAPAT

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA % JUDGMENT (ORAL) 03.12.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. We have, till date, decided 355 cases in which we have dismissed appeals challenging orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal, allowing the claims of disability pension.

2. Of these, 71 cases relate to instances where the officers suffered from Diabetes Mellitus Type-II1.

3. This is the 72nd case, also involving an officer suffering from DM-II.

4. As in all other cases, the respondent in the present case has Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:04.12.2025 19:19:40 W.P.(C) 18383/2025 served the Army for a considerable period - 19 years and 6 months to be precise - before onset of the ailment.

5. The report of the RMB provides the following reasoning for holding the ailment not to be attributable to or aggravated by military service: “Diabetes Mellitus Type II(Old): in peace. No close FD/HAA/CIOPS service as per para 26 CH VI of GMO 2008.” It’s a lifestyle disorder. Onset time association with stress/strain of

6. In cases where an identical ground was cited for disallowing disability pension where the officer was suffering from DM-II, we have, following the judgments of the Supreme Court in Dharamvir Singh v. UOI2 and Bijender Singh v. UOI3, dismissed writ petitions in several matters, including Union of India v. GP Capt. S Kumaran (Retd.)4, Union of India v. Sayan Panja5 and Union of India v. GP Capt. Santosh Kumar6.

7. There is no order or judgement interdicting, staying or setting aside these decisions, till date.

8. Those decisions apply, mutatis mutandis, to the present case.

9. We re-emphasize that we are not sitting in appeal over the decision of the AFT. We are exercising certiorari jurisdiction which 1 “DM-II” hereinafter 2 (2013) 7 SCC 316 3 2025 SCC OnLine SC 895 4 2025 SCC OnLine Del 7589 5 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2910 6 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3218 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:04.12.2025 19:19:40 W.P.(C) 18383/2025 is bound by the following enunciation of law in Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan7: “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 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 Ishaque8, Nagandra Nath Bora v. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals Assam9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA % JUDGMENT (ORAL) 03.12.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. We have, till date, decided 355 cases in which we have dismissed appeals challenging orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal, allowing the claims of disability pension.

2. Of these, 71 cases relate to instances where the officers suffered from Diabetes Mellitus Type-II1.

3. This is the 72nd case, also involving an officer suffering from DM-II.

4. As in all other cases, the respondent in the present case has Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:04.12.2025 19:19:40 W.P.(C) 18383/2025 served the Army for a considerable period - 19 years and 6 months to be precise - before onset of the ailment.

5. The report of the RMB provides the following reasoning for holding the ailment not to be attributable to or aggravated by military service: “Diabetes Mellitus Type II(Old): in peace. No close FD/HAA/CIOPS service as per para 26 CH VI of GMO 2008.” It’s a lifestyle disorder. Onset time association with stress/strain of

6. In cases where an identical ground was cited for disallowing disability pension where the officer was suffering from DM-II, we have, following the judgments of the Supreme Court in Dharamvir Singh v. UOI2 and Bijender Singh v. UOI3, dismissed writ petitions in several matters, including Union of India v. GP Capt. S Kumaran (Retd.)4, Union of India v. Sayan Panja5 and Union of India v. GP Capt. Santosh Kumar6.

7. There is no order or judgement interdicting, staying or setting aside these decisions, till date.

8. Those decisions apply, mutatis mutandis, to the present case.

9. We re-emphasize that we are not sitting in appeal over the decision of the AFT. We are exercising certiorari jurisdiction which 1 “DM-II” hereinafter 2 (2013) 7 SCC 316 3 2025 SCC OnLine SC 895 4 2025 SCC OnLine Del 7589 5 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2910 6 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3218 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:04.12.2025 19:19:40 W.P.(C) 18383/2025 is bound by the following enunciation of law in Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan7: “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 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 Ishaque8, Nagandra Nath Bora v. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals Assam9