UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana 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

 

 

Latest Legal News