Mr. Kameshwar Nath Mishra, SPC with Mr. Shubhashish Roy, Ms. Vidya Mishra, Advs v. GP CAPT AJAI KUMAR AGNIHOTRI

Judgment

1. This is a writ petition filed by the Union of India assailing order dated 8 April 2024 passed by the AFT allowing a claim of disability pension.

2. This Bench has passed as many as 355 orders allowing claims for disability pension, of which 15 orders cover cases of CAD.

3. In the present case, the onset of CAD from which the respondent was found to suffer was 32 years after he had joined military service. It is not in dispute that, at the time when the Signature Not Verified respondent joined service, he was not recorded as suffering from any Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:04.12.2025 19:19:40 W.P.(C) 18384/2025 cardiac ailment.

4. The reasons adduced by the Release Medical Board1 for treating the CAD from which the respondent was found to be suffering not to be attributable to or aggravated by military service, read thus: “CAD STE IWMI SVD Normal LV Function PAMI STENTING DES(OLD): Onset of disability: 16 Apr 2012 at New Delhi, in peace area. There is no delay in diagnosis. Neither attributable nor aggravated by service. No, as per Charter of duties dated 08 Mar 2013.”

5. The only reasons provided by the RMB are, therefore, that (i) the onset of disability was while the respondent was posted in a peace area and (ii) there was no delay in diagnosis. Besides, this, there is a reference to the Charter of duties of the respondent, without any elucidation as to how it is at all relevant.

6. The Supreme Court has already held, in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India2 and Bijender Singh v. Union of India3 that such ailments can, in the case of persons in military service, occur even when they are posted in peace areas owing to the stress and strain of service. These decisions have clearly held that, in all such cases, the RMB is required to identify an alternate cause for the disability, if it is not attributable to or aggravated by military service. Merely stating that the onset of disability was when the officer was posted in the peace area is entirely insufficient. 1 “RMB” hereinafter 2 (2013) 7 SCC 316 3 2025 SCC OnLine SC 895 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:04.12.2025 19:19:40 W.P.(C) 18384/2025

7. We are also unable to understand why the RMB has stated that there is no delay in diagnosis. We do not understand the connection between delay in diagnosis and the issue of whether the CAD from which the respondent was suffering was attributable to or aggravated by military service. If anything, the fact that there was no delay in

diagnosis would seem to confirm that the onset of the CAD was proximate to the date when it was diagnosed, which would in turn indicate that it was attributable to the military service undergone by the respondent.

8. We have also seen the record of the specialist who has examined the respondent. The specialist, too, does not state that the CAD from which the respondent was suffering was not attributable to or aggravated by military service. Nor is any alternate cause for the CAD identified.

9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that (i) the decision of the RMB is final and (ii) the respondent has not challenged the decision of the RMB except by way of an OA which was filed five years after he had retired.

10. We find the submission truly surprising. It goes without saying that there can be no foreclosure of judicial review against a decision of the petitioner, or the findings of the RMB.

11. The respondent has in fact challenged the decision of the RMB before the AFT. The AFT has also factored in the aspect of delay by Signature Not Verified reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:04.12.2025 19:19:40 W.P.(C) 18384/2025 Tarsem Singh4.

12. The submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioner are, therefore, completely devoid of merit and are accordingly rejected.

13. We are not sitting 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. Radhakrishnan5: “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 Signature Not Verified