$~70 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010467772026 + W.P.(C) 14374/2026 UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Amit Tiwari, CGSC, Ms. Ayushi Srivastava, Ms. Vidhi Gupta, Mr. Chetanya Puri, Mr. Arpan Narwal, Mr. Kushagra Malik, Mr. Ujjwal Tyagi, Advs, with Maj. Anish Muralidhar, Maj. Rahul Kumar and Capt. Himanshu Tyagi. Versus BRIG N.K. MISHRA (RETD) (IC-35947N) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Shakti Jaidwal, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY SHARMA O R D E R % 28.09.2026 1. The challenge in the petition is to the order dated 02nd September, 2024, passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “The Tribunal”) in OA 1840/2017, whereby the Tribunal allowed the OA and directed the present petitioner/original respondent before the Tribunal to conduct a Post Discharge Medical Board qua the respondent within a period of two months from the date of the order, in relation to the disabilities This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/10/2026 at 11:56:04 suffered by the respondent, namely “BENIGNPROSTATE HYPERPLASIA (BPH) and BRONCHIAL ASTHMA and PARKINSONS DISEASE”. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner/original respondent would urge that the conduct of the respondent, while he was about two weeks away in his discharge from the service of the petitioner, was not at all reasonable. 3. Our attention is invited to the Release Medical Board, wherein the respondents have specifically stated that he was not suffering from the disability mentioned in the Medical Examination Report (Question No. 2 at Annexure P-2), or anything prior to joining the Armed Forces. It is further brought to our notice that the respondent had categorically stated that he was not suffering from any disability attributable to service. 4. It is urged that, although the petitioner had undergone neurological treatment in relation to Parkinson’s disease by a private doctor, the said fact was intentionally suppressed by the petitioner, with a view to securing subsequent employment with the respondent. 5. It is urged that, it was only during the second employment with the BSF that it was discovered that the petitioner was suffering from the aforesaid medical condition. In such an eventuality, it is urged that the respondent is not entitled to the relief granted by the Tribunal. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent would oppose the prayer, as, according to him, the directions of the Tribunal are quite reasonable, as the petitioner has been directed to be subjected to a Medical Examination. In such an eventuality, it is urged that the order cannot be said to be prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner. 7. We have considered the aforesaid submissions. 8. The aforesaid submissions, insofar as they are borne out from the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/10/2026 at 11:56:04 record, cannot be disputed. It is evident from the record that the petitioner had answered “No” to the question as to whether he was claiming any disability attributable due to service. 9. Such answer to the question, in our opinion, cannot lead to drawing a conclusion that, as on the date of his discharge or the Release Medical Board, he can be said to have incurred any disability. 10. The degree of disability arising from the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease, as well as the other ailments relating to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia, appears to have aggravated with the passage of time, particularly as the petitioner subsequently took up employment with the BSF. The medical report in this regard speaks to the aggravation in the petitioner’s medical condition, as is evident from the document issued by the BSF. 11. In the aforesaid factual background, it cannot be said that the respondent was suffering from early Parkinson’s disease or had any disability on the date of the Release Medical Board, i.e., 2nd May, 2013. It was only after a lapse of more than two years, during a subsequent medical examination conducted by the BSF authorities, that the aforesaid ailment and symptoms were noticed. 12. In such an eventuality, there is no reason to infer that the respondent had any intention to suppress the material facts as regards to his disability from the petitioner. 13. Rather, the impugned order gives an opportunity to the petitioner to assess the medical condition of the respondent, so as to decide whether he is entitled to the monetary benefit or financial benefit. 14. In such an eventuality, no case for causing interference in the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/10/2026 at 11:56:04 extraordinary jurisdiction is made out. 15. The petition stands dismissed. NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J SANJAY SHARMA, J SEPTEMBER 28, 2026/rk/ok This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/10/2026 at 11:56:04