Ex Sep Banwari Lal vs UOI & Others on 15 April 2026

O R D E R

15.04.2026

1. By way of this Application under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has prayed for directing the Respondents to consider his disability as Attributable to and Aggravated by Military Service andgrant Disability Pensionto the Applicant wef 16.09.1966 in terms of PCDA (P) Circular No 527 dt 25.04.2021 and Govt of India, Ministry of Defence letter No 12(28)/2010-D(Pen/Pol) dt 10.02.2014 and that the arrears be paid along with interest @ 10% per annum.

2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the Applicant are that the Applicant was enrolled in the Army on 09.01.1962 in physically and medically fit condition and after rendering four years, 8 months and 10 days of service, he was invalided out of Service on 16.09.1966. Due to lack of knowledge, the

Applicant could not pursue his case for grant of Disability Pension at that point of time. The Applicant submits that in terms of Govt of India, Ministry of Defence letter dt 10.02.2014 and PCDA (P) Circular No 527 dt 25.04.2014, pre- 01.01.1973 retirees who were invalided out of service on medical grounds are now entitled for grant of Service Element of Disability Pension even if their disabilities are subsequently reduced below 20%. In support of his claim, the Applicant has placed reliance on Hon’ble Supreme Court judgments in the case of Capt KJS Buttar Vs UOI & Ors, SCC 2011, XI, 429, Dharamvir Singh Vs UOI & Ors, (2013) 7 SCC 316 and UOI & Anr Vs Rajbir Singh, JT 2015(2) SC 392 and submitted that he was enrolled in the Army in physically and medically fit condition and he suffered from the disability while in service and, hence, his disability ought to have been considered as Attributable to or Aggravated by Military Service and, consequently, he be granted Disability Pension from the date of his discharge. The Applicant issued Legal Notice to the Respondents for grant of Disability Pension from his date of discharge from service but to no avail. Therefore, the aggrieved Applicant has filed present OA.

3. The Respondents have filed a detailed reply and have raised preliminary objection that the OA has been filed after an inordinate delay of more than 54 years, therefore, the OA should be dismissed on this ground alone. The Respondents have further submitted that the entire service record of the Applicant has been destroyed after expiry of its mandatory retention period. However, as per the details available in Long Roll, after rendering four years, eight months and 10 days of service, he was discharged from service on medical grounds on 16.09.1966 and no other details are available. In the absence of service records, the Respondents are not in a position to comment on his entitlement for grant of Disability Pension. In view of the aforesaid averments, the Respondents have reiterated that the OA is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

4. We have heard Learned Counsels for both the parties and perused the material placed on record.

5. It is not in dispute that the Applicant was enrolled in the Army on 09.01.1962 andafter rendering four years, 8 months and 10 days of Service, he was discharged from Service on 16.09.1966on medical grounds. Since, the service documents of the Applicant have been destroyed after mandatory retention period, the details of the disability, its attributability/aggravation and duration, etc. are not known and even the Applicant has not been able to establish the disability/disability due to which he was discharged from Service.After discharge from Service, the Applicant kept stoic silence for more than 54 years which implies that he was aware of the fact that he was not entitled for pensionary benefits and, accordingly, never raised the issue all along till he filed this OA. During the course of hearing, the Counsel for the Applicant also stated that he was not even aware of the disability for which he was medically boarded out. Keeping in view the fact that there is no evidence to prove that the Applicant suffered from the disability due to service factors nor the Applicant has been able to produce any documentary evidence to support his case, we are not inclined to consider the case of the Applicant in vaccum.

6. This is in conformity with Para 7 of Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 2008, which lays down as under:- “7. Onus of Proof : Ordinarily the claimant will not be called upon to prove the condition of entitlement. However, where the claim is preferred after 15 years of discharge/retirement/invalidment/release by which time the service documents of the claimant are destroyed after the prescribed retention period, the onus to prove the entitlement would lie on the claimant.”

7. Moreover, the OA has been filed after an inordinate and inexplicable delay of more than 54 years. Therefore, this case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C. Jacob Vs. Director of Geology and Mining & Anr.,(2008) 10 SCC 115, wherein it was held that a stale claim cannot be permitted to be reviewed. Person who slept over his right is not entitled for any indulgence. Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, in the case of Inderpal Singh Vs UOI & Orsin Civil Writ Petition 8524/2000 decided on 04.08.2004, held that the petitioner who himself was not interested in pursuing the matter and kept silent for 11 years, hence delay cannot be condoned.

8. In fine, we are of the considered view that we find no merit on any count in the plea of the Applicant. The OA is devoid of merit on all counts and, hence, is dismissed. Pending Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, also stand disposed off.

9. No order on costs.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

Ssy/-