Armed Forces Tribunal
Ex Sep Indra Singh vs UOI & Others on 18 March 2026
ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, JAIPUR
(CIRCUIT BENCH, JODHPUR)
PHYSICAL HEARING
8.
OA 591/2023 with MA 1093/2023
Ex Sep Indra Singh (8035687L)
…. Applicant
Versus
UOI & Others
…. Respondents
For Applicant
: Mr. DS Rathore, Soumya, Advocate
For Respondents
: Mr. Samir Shrimali, Advocate
Capt Vishaka Bhosale, OIC Legal Cell, HQ 12 Corps
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, MEMBER (J)
HON’BLE MR. SANJIV MITTAL, MEMBER (A)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
18.03.2026
1. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the applicant has filed this OA praying for quashing and setting aside the action of the Respondents being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and that the Respondents be directed to determine, sanction and release 30% disability element of disability pension to the applicant and its rounding off to 50% wef 01/10/2022 or grant Invalid Pension wef 01/10/2022 under the provisions of Govt of India Ministry of Defence, Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare letter dated 16/7/2020 with interest @8%.
2. During the course of hearing, Counsel for the Respondents has raised preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of this OA on the ground that the applicant has not preferred any Appeal after rejection of his claim for disability pension as intimated to him vide DSC Records letter dated 25/3/2023 on the ground that the disability of the applicant, “Primary Hypertension”, has been considered as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. He further submits that rather than availing the departmental remedy available
2
to him, the applicant has straightaway filed the OA praying for relief. Contention of the Counsel for the Respondents has also been stated in the Reply Statement filed by the Respondents in this matter.
3. Taking note of overall facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate that in case the applicant files an Appeal against rejection of his claim for grant of disability element of disability Pension as prayed for in the OA to the Competent Authority within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, the Competent Authority shall decide the same on merit taking into consideration all the objections that are raised by the Applicant in the OA within a further period of six months thereafter. It is made clear that the applicant shall raise the issue of grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension only as the provisions for grant of Invalid Pension would not apply to the applicant as he was discharged from his second DSC service due to his not meeting the criteria specified for continuation of his contractual second service in DSC. Moreover, the applicant is in receipt of pension for his first spell of service in the Army. The decision so arrived at on the Appeal shall be intimated to the applicant.
4. The OA is disposed off accordingly. No order on costs.
5. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed off.
(SANJIV MITTAL)
(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)
MEMBER (J)
cda/-