Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Petitioner Did Not Endorse Part-Payments on Cheque; Section 138 NI Act Not Attracted: Madras High Court Minority Christian Schools Not Bound by Rules of 2018; Disciplinary Proceedings Can Continue: High Court of Calcutta Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High Court

Training Period Too Short to Cause Condition: High Court Upholds AFT's Decision Denying Disability Pension

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi has dismissed a petition challenging the denial of disability pension to a former Sepoy, Naresh Kumar, affirming the Air Force Tribunal's (AFT) decision. The bench, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Saurabh Banerjee, pronounced the judgment on January 11, 2024, under W.P.(C) 15594/2023 & CM APPL. 62394/2023.

The petitioner, Naresh Kumar, sought a writ of Certiorari to quash the AFT's orders, which denied him a disability pension for his medical condition, 'Aortic Regurgitation,' diagnosed during his military training. Kumar's condition was deemed not attributable to military service, leading to his discharge in January 1992.

In their detailed judgment, the High Court observed, "The training period was too short to cause such mental and physical strain and/or stress to the petitioner so as to result in his medical condition, for consideration of granting disability pension." This statement underscores the court's stance on the non-attribution of the petitioner's medical condition to military service.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee, in his judgment, highlighted the petitioner's delayed approach in seeking legal redressal and the lack of valid justification for the delays. The court noted that there was a total unexplained and inordinate delay of over 30 years from the date of discharge of the petitioner from service, which influenced the decision.

The court's analysis leaned heavily on precedents, referencing significant cases like Union of India v. Baljit Singh (1996), Ministry of Defence v. A.V. Damodaran (2009), and Narsingh Yadav v. Union of India (2019). These cases played a crucial role in reinforcing the principle that medical conditions must be attributable to military service for disability pensions to be granted.

Delhi High Court's dismissal of the petition reaffirms the legal principle that disability pensions are not a matter of right but depend on the factual matrix of each case. The judgment serves as a precedent for similar cases involving the attribution of medical conditions to military service.

Date of Decision: 11.01.2024

EX RECT NARESH KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

 

 

Similar News