Appellate Court Can Allow Additional Evidence To Ensure Fair Adjudication Even If Not Produced In Trial: Madhya Pradesh High Court Police Can Freeze Bank Accounts Under Section 106 BNSS Upon Suspicion Of 'Proceeds Of Crime': Punjab & Haryana High Court 'No Penalty For Monthly MGQ Shortfall If Annual Target Met': Supreme Court Upholds Quashing Of Excise Department Demands For Liquor Licensees 'Murder Went Unavenged, But Courts Cannot Convict On Mere Assumptions': Supreme Court Acquits Accused In 1988 Murder Case, Quashes High Court's Remit Order 'NCSC Cannot Pass Mandatory Adjudicatory Orders Directing Payment Of Arrears': Supreme Court Clarifies Commission's Powers Under Article 338 "'Cannot Present Fait Accompli': Supreme Court Upholds Denial Of NOC To Airman For Skipping Prior Permission To Apply For Civil Post" Supreme Court Upholds 2017 Notification For Ex Post Facto Environmental Clearances, Quashes 2021 Office Memorandum As Impermissible Executive Overreach Workman Fails To Prove 240 Days Continuous Work; Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Denial Of Reinstatement For "Abandonment Of Service" Party Cannot Take Contradictory Stands In Same Case, Admissions In Pleadings Bind Them Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC: Telangana High Court Delayed Recovery Of Weapon From Open Space Casts Serious Doubt On Prosecution Story: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Convicts Procedural Irregularities By Public Servants Serve As Circumstantial Evidence Of Conspiracy In Corruption Cases: Kerala High Court Blaming Previous Counsel For Omission Does Not Satisfy 'Due Diligence' Test To Amend Plaint After Trial Commences: Punjab & Haryana High Court Muslim Man's Second Marriage Under Special Marriage Act Void Despite Personal Law Permitting Bigamy: Karnataka High Court Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court Title And Ownership Irrelevant In Suit Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act; Plaint Liable To Be Rejected If Filed Beyond Six Months: Delhi High Court Receipt Of Pension By Widow Can Be Considered To Determine 'Just Compensation' But Not To Deprive Claimants Of Award: Calcutta High Court FSL Report Lacking Scientific Criteria And Data Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Allahabad High Court Issues Directives For Testing Viscera Standard Of Proof In Railway Accident Claims Is Preponderance Of Probabilities, Not Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Gujarat High Court No Second Statutory Appeal Lies Against Conviction By Appellate Court Reversing Acquittal; Revision Is Sole Remedy: Supreme Court Wives' Property Is Their Own, Not Husband's: Supreme Court REJECTS High Court's Succession Formula; Restores Clarity For Christian Inheritance

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

 

 

Latest Legal News