Union Of India & ORS. v. Gp Capt Vijay Arvind Kulkarni
$~31 *
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 19607/2025, CM APPLs. 81958/2025 & 81959/2025 UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
.....Petitioners Through:
Mr.
Himanshu Pathak, SPC with Mr. Chetan Sharma, Adv. for UOI with Sgt.
Manish Kumar Singh and Sgt.
Mritunjay, (Legal Cell) Air Force versus GP CAPT VIJAY ARVIND KULKARNI .....Respondent Through:
Mr. Baljeet Singh, Ms. Deepika Sheoran and Mr. Abhishek Gahlyan, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA JUDGMENT (ORAL) % 23.12.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1.
This writ petition assails an order dated 12 May 2023 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal1 whereby the respondent's prayer for disability pension has been allowed.
2.
Disability pension was sought on the ground that the respondent suffered from Primary Hypertension and Diabetes Mellitus II which was found to be 30% and 20%, respectively for life rounded off to 50%. The onset of the Primary Hypertension and Diabetes Mellitus II was 32 years after the respondent joined the service. No Primary Hypertension and Diabetes Mellitus II were noted at the time when the 1 "AFT", hereinafter
respondent was recruited.
3.
The reasoning given by the Release Medical Board for holding that the respondent's Primary Hypertension and Diabetes Mellitus II was not attributable to or aggravated by service read thus: "Primary Hypertension I10.0, Z09.0:
Life Style Disease, Onset in Peace, No delay in diagnosis and treatment, No close connection with HAA, CIOPS/FA (Refer Para 43 Chapter VI of GMO 2008).
Type II Diabetes Mellitus E11, Z09.0:
Life Style Disease, Onset in Peace, No delay in diagnosis and treatment, No close connection with HAA, CIOPS/FA (Refer Para 26 Chapter VI of GMO 2008)."
4.
In 240 similar cases, in which the reasoning of the RMB is substantially the same, including Union of India v. CDR Sudesh Kumar Sharma2 and Union of India v. Col Sanjay Singh (Retd.)3 as well as Union of India v. Ex Sub Gawas Anil Madso4, we have upheld the order of the AFT and dismissed the writ petition. 5.
Those decisions apply, mutatis mutandis, to the present case. 6.
We have not been informed that any of these decisions has been stayed or interfered with by the Supreme Court. 7.
This dispute is entirely covered by the aforesaid decisions. 8.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
2 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4840 3 2025 SCC OnLine Del 7543 4 318 (2025) DLT 711they
9.
Compliance with the order of the AFT be positively ensured within twelve weeks from today.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
DECEMBER 23, 2025/aky