UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. 681120 EX HFO RAVINDRA KUMAR RAM
Court: High Court of Delhi
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Delhi judgment dated 2025-09-26. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. 681120 EX HFO RAVINDRA KUMAR RAM. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
$~21 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W. P. (C) 15009/2025, CM APPL. 61768/2025 & CM APPL. 61769/2025 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Santosh Pandey, SPC and Mr. Yash Maurya, Adv. SGT, Mr. Manish Kumar Singh and SGT Mritunjay, Air Force Legal Cell. versus 681120 EX HFO RAVINDRA KUMAR RAM ..... Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA JUDGMENT(ORAL) % 26. 09. 2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. 1. This petition, at the instance of Union of India, assails order dated 9 November 2023 passed by the Armed Forced Tribunal in OA 1 1175/2023 . By the said OA, the respondent sought disability pension. The respondent had been found to be suffering from primary hypertension to the extent of 30% for life rounded off to 50%. The respondent was, therefore, released on that ground after thirty eight years and two months after he joined service. 2.
The report of the Relief Medical Board provides the following reasons for holding that the respondent’s hypertension was not attributable to the military service: HFO Ravindra Kumar Ram v UOI Disability Attributable Aggravated Detailed Justification to service by service (Y/N) (Y/N) Primary No No A lifestyle related Hypertension disease. Onset on (old) I10, Sep 2015, while Z09 posted to Delhi and T/D to sulur both are peace stations. There is no close time association with stress & strain of field/HAA/CI Ops of service. Therefore, disability is neither attributable nor aggravated by Military service in terms of para 43 of Chapter VI of Guide to Medical Officer (Military Pension 2008) 3.
In similar petitions, in which identical grounds have been cited by the medical board, following the decision of Supreme Court in 2 3 Dharamvir Singh v UOI , Bijender Singh v Union of India as well 4 as Union of India v Ex Sub Gawas Anil Madso , we have held that the respondent is entitled to disability pension. 4. Accordingly, the Armed Forces Tribunal cannot be said to have erred in law or in fact. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 5. The petitioner is directed to comply with the directions of the AFT within twelve weeks from today. (2013) 7 SCC 316 2025 SCC OnLine SC 895 (2025) 318 DLT 711 6. The respondent would be entitled to broadbanding from the date 5 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ram Avtar . 7. Arrears, if any, would only be paid for the period of three years prior to institution of the OA before the Tribunal. C. HARI SHANKAR, J. OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J. SEPTEMBER 26, 2025/AT Union of India v Ram Avtar, 2014 SCC OnLine SC 1761
Source: High Court of Delhi. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.