Ex Sep Rajesh Kumar (Army) vs UOI & Others on 10 August 2026

**O R D E R**

**10.08.2026**

1. 1. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has prayed for directing the Respondents to grant Service Element of Pension for life wef 21.01.1998 and that the arrears be paid along with interest @ 12% per annum.

2. 2. During the course of arguments, Learned Counsel for the Respondents vehemently opposed the maintainability of the OA on the grounds that upon rejection of Appeal of the Applicant for grant of Disability Pension vide letter No 25.01.2001, the Applicant had filed CWP No 20/2004 before Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur which was transferred to this Tribunal and Registered as TA No 176/2009. TA No 176/2009 was dismissed on merit by this Tribunal vide Order dt 04.08.2010. Thereafter, the Applicant again filed OA No 989/2012 before this Tribunal for grant of Disability Pension which was dismissed as withdrawn without any liberty. In view of the aforesaid averments, Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the OA is governed by the principles of Res-judicata and, hence, deserves to be dismissed. However, the Counsel for the Applicant stated that while the earlier TA 176/2019 (CWP No 20/2004), which was considered on merits of the case and was dismissed by this Tribunal vide its Order dt 04.08.2010, was for grant of Disability Pension, the instant OA No 104/2018 was for grant of Service Element of Pension wef date of discharge of the Applicant for life, and, hence, the doctrine of Res-judicata does not apply in this case.

3. The contention of the Counsel for the Applicant has been examined. It has been seen that since the Applicant had served only for a little over 3 years before he was invalided out, he was paid Invalid Gratuity as he was not found entitled to disability pension in view of his disability being neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. This Tribunal also came to the same conclusion and, accordingly, the TA was dismissed. Another OA filed by the Applicant for grant of disability pension was dismissed as withdrawn by this Tribunal on 29.10.2013. Further, the disability pension consists of two elements, viz., Service Element and Disability Element. While the Service Pension is granted if the service personnel have served for a minimum period of 15 years, the Service Element of Disability Pension can be granted if they have served even for less than 15 years provided they have been granted Disability Pension by considering their disability as either attributable to or aggravated by military service and disability being more than 20%. As the Applicant was not found entitled to Disability Pension and had served for only 3 years and 3 months, he is not entitled to grant of Service Element of Pension since he does not fulfil the criteria for grant of any kind of pension whether Service or Disability Pension. Hence, the principle of Res-judicata is applicable in this case as he could have been granted Service Element only if he was granted Disability Pension.

4. During the course of arguments, it was further submitted by the Counsel for the Respondents that the Applicant has also made no representation for grant of Service Element of Pension before the Competent Authority when he was not found entitled to Disability Pension and, hence, has not availed the remedy available to him, before filing this OA. On knowing this, the Counsel for the Applicant sought permission to withdraw the OA with liberty to file a fresh representation before the Competent Authority for grant of Service Pension for his service of 3 years and 3 months, to which Counsel for the Respondents raised no objection.

5. In view of the aforesaid facts, we direct that if the Applicant makes a fresh representation before the Competent Authority with regard to his prayer of Service Pension within a period of one months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order, the Respondents shall consider the same within a period of eight months thereafter in terms of extant rules/regulations and policies. The outcome thereof shall be communicated to the Applicant.

6. The OA is disposed off accordingly. Pending Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, also stand disposed off.

7. No order on costs.

Sd/- xxx

(SANJIV MITTAL) MEMBER (A)

Ssy/-

Sd/- xxx

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (J)