Ex Gnr Har Chand Ram vs UOI & Others on 19 May 2026

O R D E R

19.05.2026

1. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has filed this OA praying therein for directing the Respondents to grant Disability Element of Disability Pension wef 06.04.1997 for life along with benefits of broad banding with interest on arrears @ 12% per annum and to conduct Re- Survey/Re-Assessment Medical Board of the Applicant to assess his present status of the disability.

2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the Applicant are that the Applicant was enrolled in the Army on 26.04.1983 and after rendering nine years and 98 days of service, he was discharged from Service on medical grounds on 31.07.1992. At the time of his discharge from Service, the duly constituted Release Medical Board assessed his composite disability @ 30% for two years for the disabilities, viz., (i) “Dracunculosis Soft Tissue (Rt) Knee” and (ii) “Sero Nagative Ploy Arthritis” and considered the same as Aggravated by Military Service. However, MA (P) at PCDA (P) re-assessed the composite disability for five years and granted him Disability Pension. Thereafter, RSMB held on 13.10.1997 assessed his disability @ 20% but MA (P) at PCDA (P) reduced the disability less than 20% and discontinued disability element of disability pension wef 06.04.1997. Thereafter, final RSMB held on 08.08.2009 assessed his composite disability @ 1-5% for life. The Applicant has placed reliance on Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment dt 14.01.1993 in Civil Appeal No 164/1993 in the case of Ex Sapper Mohinder Singh Vs UOI & Ors and contended that the MA (P) at PCDA (P) had no jurisdiction to re-assess the disabilities of the Applicant without physically examining the Applicant. Further, Govt of India, Ministry of Defence letter No 1(2)/97/D (Pen-C) dt 07.02.2001 provides that in case of the disabilities being of permanent in nature, no periodical review is needed, unless the individual requests for the same. Since, the diseases of the Applicant are of permanent nature, the Applicant is entitled for grant of Disability Pension for life and the MA (P) at PCDA (P) had no jurisdiction to review the same.

3. The Respondents have filed a detailed Reply Statement and while not disputing the basic facts presented by the Applicant, they have submitted that the duly constituted Release Medical Board had assessed his composite disability @ 30% for two years but the MA (P) at PCDA (P) granted the Applicant Disability Element of Disability Pension @ 20% for five years wef 01.08.1992 to 05.04.1997 duly rounded off to 50% from 01.01.1996 to 05.04.1997. Further RSMB held on 13.10.1997 assessed his Composite Disability @ 11-14% permanent, however, MA (P) at PCDA (P) re-assessed for five years from

06.04.1997 to 12.10.2002 and discontinued Disability Element of Disability Pension wef 06.04.1997. Final RAMB held on 17.08.2009 assessed his Composite Disability @ 1-5% for life. The aforesaid facts with communicated to the Applicant with an advice to prefer an Appeal before the Competent Authority, if he was not satisfied with the same, however, he did not file any Appeal within stipulated timeframe. After a long delay of more than 30 years, the Applicant issued Legal Notice dt 17.09.2023 for grant of Disability Pension which was suitably replied on 27.10.2023 to intimating him about his non-entitlement for grant of Disability Pension. The Respondents have submitted that since the disability of the Applicant was assessed below 20%, he is not eligible for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension in terms of Rule 173 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 wef 06.04.1997. Moreover, the Applicant had the remedy of appeal, however, he did not file any appeal. 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 before us.

5. Perusal of records reveals that the Applicant’s Composite Disability was assessed by the duly constituted Release Medical Board @ 30% for two years, however, the MA (P) at PCDA (P) re-assessed the same @ 20% for five years and granted Disability Element of Disability Pension to the Applicant from 01.08.1992 to 05.04.1997. Subsequent RSMB held on 13.10.1997 assessed his disability @ 11-14% permanent, however, the MA (P) at PCDA (P) re-assessed the same below 20% for five years and discontinued Disability Element of Disability Pension wef 06.04.1997. It is observed that since his percentage of disability as assessed by RSMB was below 20%, he was not eligible for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension. As it was modified by MA (P) at PCDA (P) for a period of five years, the Applicant was subjected to RAMB in 2009. Final RAMB held on 17.08.2009 assessed his disability @ 1-5% for life and, accordingly, Disability Element of Disability Pension was discontinued. The Applicant was communicated about rejection of his disability pension with an advice to prefer an Appeal before the Competent Authority if he was not satisfied with rejection of the disability pension claim but he did not file any Appeal.

6. Keeping in view the fact that the Applicant is a Sepoy and he did not file an Appeal before the Competent Authority against the findings of the RSMB/RAMB for whatever reasons and circumstances and since now he has filed this present Application before this Tribunal after a delay of approximately 27 years of rejection of Disability Pension claim, we deem it appropriate to direct that in case the Applicant makes a fresh representation before the Competent Authority for holding of onetime RAMB within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order, the Competent Authority shall decide the fresh representation within a period of six months thereafter as per extant rules/regulations/policies and the outcome shall be informed to the Applicant. In case the Applicant is found eligible for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension based on the findings of onetime RAMB, the Applicant shall be granted the same from the date of filing of the present OA, ie., 10.01.2024.

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

8. No order on costs.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

Ssy/-