Delhi High Court - Orders
Ex Cadet Nishant Singh vs Union Of India And Ors on 25 July, 2025
Author: Subramonium Prasad
Bench: Subramonium Prasad
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 11118/2018
EX CADET NISHANT SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Suraj Prakash Singh, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondent
Through: Mr Farman Ali SPC, Mr Adil
Hussain Tagvi GP & Ms Usha Jamnal,
Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
ORDER
% 25.07.2025 CM. APPL.44627/2025
1. The instant application has been filed contending that the order dated 24th March, 2023 passed by this Court in C.M. APPL. 39455/2022 has not been complied with.
2. For the sake of clarity, the entire order is reproduced herein below:-
"1. This application has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:
"It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased;
a) to clarify the order dated 15.10.2018 passed in Writ Petition No. 11118/2018 to the extent that the Second Appeal of the Petitioner may be processed without the influence of the said order and on its own merits;
b) pass any other order or direction as this Hon'ble 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 28/07/2025 at 22:55:17 Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. Suffice to state that the writ petition was decided by this Court on October 15, 2018, whereby this Court while dismissing the petition has in paragraph 5 stated as under:
"5. The very fact that the petitioner had stated that he had accepted the decision of the Medical Board to invalidate him and that he did not propose to challenge the findings of the Medical Board by filing an appeal, explains the absence of any explanation for the delay in approaching the Court for reliefs. We may also note that the petitioner had submitted a first appeal to the respondents after a passage of 15 years, only on 08.08.2015, which was also rejected on 27.06.2016. Merely because a second appeal was filed by the petitioner on 25.07.2016 and the same is pending, cannot be treated as a sufficient cause for this Court to condone such an inordinate delay. Even on facts, we do not find any force in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had suffered a disability which is attributable to Military service. On the contrary, the findings of the Medical Board were clear and the same had duly been accepted by the petitioner without any reservation, as is apparent from the records."
4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that after this Court had passed the order dated October 15, 2018, the respondents pursuant to sanction accorded by the DGAFMS on December 14, 2018 have conducted a Second Appellate Medical Board on August 24, 2020. The grievance of the petitioner as urged by his counsel is that the respondents have not declared the result of the Second Appellate Medical Board. His only prayer is that the respondents should be directed to declare the result of the Second Appellate Medical Board without being influenced by the decision of this Court on October 15, 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 28/07/2025 at 22:55:17 2018.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that once the Writ Petition has been dismissed, the petitioner cannot seek the declaration of the result of the Second Appellate Medical Board as the issue with regard to disability pension has attained finality with the decision of this is this Court.
5. We are not in agreement with the said submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents for more than one reason, firstly after the order dated October 15, 2018 dismissing the Writ Petition approval has been given by DGAFMS for conducting the Second Appellate Medical Board and secondly, the respondents have in fact held the Second Appellate Medical Board. If that be so, the respondents should declare the result of the Second Appellate Medical Board and convey the decision to the petitioner within four weeks from today.
6. The application is disposed of."
7. Paragraph 5 of the above order only warrants the respondents to declare the result of the Second Appellate Medical Board and convey the decision to the petitioner within a period of four weeks. This, admittedly, has already been done.
8. Accordingly, the reliefs of the petitioner in the present application are beyond the purview of the said order, especially, since it is not for this Court to go into the implementation and/ or the outcome of the decision taken by the Second Appellate Medical Board. For this, the petitioner has to take recourse to the remedies as available to him under law for implementation of the result of the Second Appellate Medical Board.
9. As such, the prayer sought in the present application to process the result in an already disposed of petition is not maintainable.
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 28/07/2025 at 22:55:17
10. With the aforesaid observations, the application stands disposed of.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J SAURABH BANERJEE, J JULY 25, 2025/NA 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 28/07/2025 at 22:55:17