Mr. Kushagra Kumar, SPC with Ms. Pragati Trivedi, Adv v. (622754) EX SGT MOHAMMAD YAMIN

Through: Mr. Praveen Kumar, Adv. 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. This is a writ petition filed by the Union of India assailing order dated 16 August 2023 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal1 allowing a claim of disability pension.

2. This is yet another case in which a writ petition has been filed, assailing the order passed by the AFT allowing a claim for disability pension, in a case where the officer was found to suffer from primary hypertension.

3. We may note, at the very outset, that the order passed by the Signature Not Verified 1 “the AFT” hereinafter Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:04.12.2025 19:19:40 W.P.(C) 18383/2025 Tribunal is of dated 16 August 2023, and the present petition has been filed in November 2025 without a word of explanation for the delay.

4. Following the law declared by the Supreme Court in a plethora of judgements disapproving entertainment of grossly belated writ petitions, including the recent decision in Thirunagalingam v. R. Lingeswaran2, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed even on the ground of unconscionable delay and laches.

5. Nonetheless, as it is covered by earlier orders passed by us, we also deal with it on merits.

6. This Bench has passed as many as 355 orders allowing claims for disability pension, of which 204 orders cover cases of primary hypertension.

7. No order, interdicting or staying the operation of any of our decisions, has been brought to our notice.

8. In the present case, the respondent remained in service with the petitioner for 37 years and 4 months before he was released from service. The onset of disability was itself 31 years after he had joined service. The report of the Release Medical Board3 itself records that, at the time when the respondent joined service, he was not recorded as suffering from primary hypertension. Signature Not Verified 2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1093 3 “RMB” hereinafter Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:04.12.2025 19:19:40 W.P.(C) 18383/2025

9. The reasons adduced by the RMB for treating the respondent’s primary hypertension as not attributable to or aggravated by military service, read thus: “ID occurred in peace unit (As per para 43 of Chp VI of GMO Mil Pensions 2008.”

10. The only reason stated, therefore, is that the ailment “occurred in peace unit”. Apart from this, para 43 of Chapter VI of the GMO has been referred to.

11. We have also seen the accompanying report of the specialist who had investigated the respondent and we find that the specialist, too, has not opined that the primary hypertension from which the respondent was suffering was not attributable to or aggravated by military service.

12. The reason stated in the present case is identical to that contained in, several earlier decisions of this Bench, including Union of India v. Ex. SGT Manoj K L Retd4, Union of India v. Rajveender Singh Mallhi5 and Union of India v. Koutharapu Srinivasa6, etc. We have, in all these cases, granted disability pension and upheld the decision of the AFT.

13. These decisions apply, mutatis mutandis, to the present case.

14. We deem it appropriate to re-emphasize that we are not sitting 4 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8442 5 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3956 6 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4292 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:04.12.2025 19:19:40 W.P.(C) 18383/2025 in appeal over the decision of the AFT. We are exercising certiorari jurisdiction which 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 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 Ishaque8, Nagandra Nath Bora v. Signature Not Verified