Delhi High Court: In a petition filed by the Union under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the order dated 12-05-2023 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal (‘AFT’) whereby the AFT had applied the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India (2013) 7 SCC 316, a Division Bench of Navin Chawla* and Shalinder Kaur, JJ. said that the disability suffered by the respondent, an army personnel, could be attributed to or said to have been aggravated by the conditions of service and found no reasons to interfere with the decision of the AFT.
Background
The petitioner contended that the AFT had failed to appreciate that in order dated 24-10-2018 passed by the Additional Directorate General of Manpower (Policy and Planning), detailed analysis was done by the Competent Authority on the disability suffered by the respondent and as to why it could not be said to be attributed to or aggravated by the conditions of service.
The respondent referred to the opinion of the Medical Board wherein not only there was a change of opinion on whether the disability could be said to have been aggravated by the service, but there was also an observation that the disease of the respondent was diagnosed in July 2006 during his peace tenure and that he had been serving in the peace area since 1993.
Analysis and Decision
The Court said that as was evident from the Medical Board Proceedings itself, the premise that the respondent was posted in a peace area from 1993 was factually incorrect. It was noted that the Medical Board Proceedings acknowledged that the posting of the respondent involved severe stress and strain.
The Court noted that in the order dated 24-10-2018, the findings were premised on the fact that when the disability was first noticed, the respondent was not working in the field. Further, the Court opined that this could not be a sufficient ground for holding that the disability suffered by the respondent could not be attributed to or said to have been aggravated by the conditions of service.
The Court, while dismissing the application, said that the AFT had given cogent reasons for disagreeing with the opinion of the Medical Board and for granting relief to the respondent and thus, it found no ground to interfere with the findings of the AFT.
[Union of India v. Col (TS) Shyama Nand Jha (Retd.), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7298, Decided on 15-10-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner — CGSC Ravi Prakash, Advocate Yasharth, Advocate Tana Yasin, Advocate Ashu Khandelwal, Advocate Isha Kanth
For Respondent — n/a
Buy Constitution of India HERE
