Ex Sep Debu Ram (Army) vs UOI & Others on 20 August 2026

**ORDER

20.08.2026**

**MA No 280/2017**

- 1. The Applicant has filed this MA praying for condonation of delay of more than three decades as could be culled from the record - the exact period of delay has not been specified by the applicant in this application - in filing the OA, which would be considered alongwith the OA.

**OA No 164/2017**

- 2. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the applicant has filed this OA praying for quashing and setting aside the Impugned Orders, Annexures A1 & 2, being arbitrary and illegal and that the applicant may be declared to be entitled for grant of service element of disability pension with effect from 13/11/1986

alongwith arrears of service element with interest @18% per annum. He has also prayed for directing the Respondents to extend the benefit of broadbanding of disability pension @50% wef 01/1/1996 alongwith interest @18% per annum and suitable compensation by way of cost may also be paid to the applicant for mental agony and litigation as the Respondents illegally ceased service element contrary to regulations 186 (2).

3. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the applicant are that the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 27/12/1971 in medical category SHAPE I and no disease or disability was noted in his recruitment papers by the recruiting medical officer. The applicant *after completion of 23 years and 157 days of service / (sic)* was invalided out from service on 02/6/1975 due to the disability, "Pulmonary Tuberculosis", which was assessed @100% and considered it as attributable to military service. He was granted disability pension initially @100% which was reduced to 40% for the period from 28/8/1982 to 11/10/1986. Thereafter, percentage of disability of the applicant was reduced to less than 20% on 13/11/1986 and the disability pension was ceased by the Respondents. Despite several representations submitted by the applicant to the Respondents to restore the disability pension which was arbitrarily stopped abruptly as also for holding a fresh RSMB of the applicant, the Respondents have not paid any heed to the applicant till date. Having been aggrieved by the action of the Respondents, the applicant has filed this QA praying for relief.

4. The Respondents have filed a Reply Statement. While not disputing the basic facts, the Respondents have submitted that the applicant was invalided out from service wef 01/6/1975 due to the disability, "Pulmonary Tuberculosis" under Rule 13 (3) item III (iii) of Army Rules 1954. The duly constituted IMB assessed the said disability of the applicant @100% for one year and considered it as attributable to military service. While the applicant was granted service element of disability pension for life, based on the IMB and subsequent RSMBs, he was also granted disability element wef the date of his invalidment till 12/11/1986. Final RSMB held on 13/11/1986 at MH, Jaipur assessed the disability of the applicant @ 9-14% Permanent for life and, therefore the disability element of the applicant has been discontinued wef 13/11/1986. Respondents have further submitted that since the disability element of the applicant has been discontinued wef 13/11/1986, he is not eligible for grant of broadbanding benefit of his disability in terms of policy formulated by the Govt of India, Ministry of Defence vide their letter dated 15/9/2014.

5. We have heard the counsels for the parties and perused the material on record,

6. It is evident from the material on record that the applicant was invalided out from service wef 31/5/1975 due to the disability, "Pulmonary Tuberculosis", under Rule 13 (3) item III (iii) of Army Rules 1954. He had rendered only three years and 157 days of service, though the applicant has stated 23 years and 157 days of service, which is incorrect since he was discharged from service wef 01/6/1975. The duly constituted IMB assessed the said disability of the applicant @100% for one year and considered it as attributable to military service. While the applicant was granted Service Element of Disability Pension for life, based on the IMB and subsequent RSMBs, the applicant was also granted disability element at varying percentages with effect from his date of invalidment, ie. 01/6/1975 till 11/10/1986. Final RSMB held at MH Jaipur on 13/11/1986 assessed the disability of the applicant @9-14%, Permanent and accordingly, the disability element of the applicant was discontinued wef 13/11/1986. This position was communicated to the applicant vide Record Office letter dated 02/7/1987 with an advice to prefer an Appeal, if so desired. The First Appeal dated 16/9/1987 submitted by the applicant was rejected by Army HQ vide their letter dated 29/7/1988, Annexure R/4, as the disability element had been stopped once his disability was assessed @less than 20% (9-14% in this case).

7. It could be seen from the material on record that the disability of the applicant started ebbing from the 100% disability assessed by the first medical board at the time of his invalidment from service in June 1975 to the improved condition by the time the last Medical Board was held in end 1986 as the disability, Tuberculosis, is a curable disease and could be got over with proper medication, as is evident from the case of the applicant herein.

---

8. With regard to grant of Service Element once the disability falls below 20%, rule 186 (2) of Pension Regulations for the Army 1961, Part I, reads as follows :- *"An individual who was initially granted disability pension but whose disability is re-assessed at below 20% subsequently shall cease to draw disability element of disability pension from the date it falls below 20%. He shall, however, continue to draw the service element of disability pension".*

9. In view of the foregoing and since the disability element of the applicant was assessed @ less than 20%, ie, 9-14% for life by the duly constituted RMB held on 13/11/1986, which is below the acceptable level of 20% for grant of disability element to the applicant, coupled with the fact that the applicant is in receipt of Service Element for life, we find no merit in the prayer of the applicant.

10. Apart from the above, we also find that the Application stands barred by inordinate delay and laches of more than three decades with no cogent reason for the inexplicable delay and, hence, it does not deserve to be entertained. For this reason, the Application by the Applicant is totally misconceived. In view of the above and in the light of the principles laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of C. Jacob Vs. Director of Geology and Mining & Anr. reported in (2008) 10 SCC 115, wherein it is held that a stale claim cannot be revived for grant of Pensionary benefits, the instant case cannot be entertained. The case is also squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UOI Vs Rajwanti, in Civil Appeal No 583-584 of 2017, decided on 16/1/2017.

11. In fine, we find no merit in any of the pleas of the Applicant and the OA is dismissed.

OA 164/2017 with MA 280/2017 No 3163829 Ex Sep Debu Ram

12. No order on costs.

13. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed off.

Sd/- XXX

The emblem of the Government of India, featuring the Lion Capital of Ashoka, which depicts four lions standing back-to-back, facing North, East, South, and West, with the Dharma wheel in the center.

Sd/- XXX

(SANJIV MITTAL) MEMBER (A)

अन्यमव नय (GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (J)

cda/-

The seal of the Armed Forces Tribunal. It is a circular emblem with the text "भारत बल अधिकृत" (Bharat Bal Adhikrit) at the top and "ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL" at the bottom. In the center, there is a scale of justice above a crossed rifle and a sword, with an eagle's wings spread behind them. Below the seal is a ribbon with the Sanskrit motto "यतो न्यायः ततो जयः" (Yato Nyaay: Tato Jay:).