High CourtsDivision Bench(2024) 12 DEL CK 2048

Union Of India & Ors. vs Lt Col AA Godbole (Retd.)

Delhi High Court · Decided on 4 December 2024

HON’BLE JUDGES
Navin Chawla, J · Shalinder Kaur, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
W.P.(C) 16773/2024

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 294 words

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 70962/2024 (Exemption)

1.

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 16773/2024 & CM APPL. 70961/2024

2.

This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 21.04.2023 passed by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Original Application No.971/2022, titled Lt. Col. A. A. Godbole (Retd) v. Union of India & Ors., allowing the said Original Application filed by the respondent herein and holding the respondent to be entitled to disability element of pension @ 30% rounded off to 50% with effect from the date of his discharge.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Impugned Order is a non-speaking order and has based its finding only on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Dharamair Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (2013) 7 SCC 316, without discussing any facts.

4.

While we do find merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, however, at the same time, we must also note that the Release Medical Board, held on 21.09.2015, in its finding had clearly recorded that the disability suffered by the respondent was aggravated by military service. We may reproduce the relevant finding of the Release Medical Board as under:

Exhibit reproduced from the original judgment
5.

In view of the above finding of the Release Medical Board itself, in fact, we fail to understand how the petitioners could have denied the disability pension to the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show us the reason why despite the Release Medical Board’s opinion, the respondent was not granted the disability pension.

6.

We, therefore, dismiss the present petition. The pending application is also disposed of.

7.

There shall be no order as to costs.