Ex WO Punam Chand Rathore vs UOI & Others on 31 July 2026

O R D E R

31.07.2026 MA No 404/2024

1. The applicant has filed this MA praying for condonation of delay of 22 years, seven months and nine days involved in filing the OA. The condonation of delay would be considered alongwith the OA.

OA No 273/2024

2. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the applicant has filed this OA praying for directing the Respondents to enlarge the applicant with disability

element as the applicant is suffering from acute burning and swelling around his eyes and face. He has also prayed that without prejudice to hereinabove and in alternative, the Non Applicants may be directed to initiate the process of enlarging the disability pension to the applicant after the requisite steps. He has also prayed for award of cost of the application in his favour.

3. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the applicant are that the applicant was enrolled in the Air Force as an Airman on 07/7/1971 with no note of any ailment at the time of his entry into service. The applicant has earned his promotions in due course of time and has been subjected to serve on postings at various places in India. Finally, the applicant was discharged from service on 31/7/2000 on completion of his terms and conditions of service. When the applicant was posted at Chandigarh in the month of July 1981, the applicant accrued severe burning and swelling around his eyes and on the face and also the area of skin which came in contact with air. He was admitted to Command Hospital, Chandigarh and thereafter, on investigation it was held that this problem is due to allergic contact Dermatitis Patch, which was due to parthenium/congress grass. Subsequent to this, the applicant was posted to Kalaikunda, West Bengal, and thereafter to the places where the atmosphere was free from congress grass. The applicant is settled at Jodhpur because of this allergic reaction which prevented him from going to his home town, Chittorgarh. Further, because of this disease, the right to leave and personal liberty of the applicant have been prevented which he acquired while he was in service and the Respondents have not given proper and adequate treatment, but simply being sent to other places and the disease was not rooted out and it carried on. The applicant at the age of 72 years has reduced ability to perform his daily chores. Despite the disease having acquired while in service, the Respondents have not granted him disability element. Having been aggrieved by the non action of the Respondents, the applicant has filed this OA, praying for relief.

4. The Respondents have filed their Reply Statement and submitted that the applicant was enrolled in the Air Force on 07/7/1971 and was discharged from service wef 31/7/2000 under the Clause, “On fulfilling the conditions of his enrolment”. He had rendered 29 years and 25 days of service and was granted service pension for the qualifying service. The applicant is not in receipt of disability pension, which indicates that he was discharged from service in medical category, “A4G1” as he was suffering from NIL diseases, wounds or injuries at the time of his discharge. Moreover, Section 21 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, states that the Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an appeal unless it is satisfied that, the applicant had availed the remedies available to him under the Army Act Section 1950. In the instant case, the applicant has not preferred any appeal against rejection of his disability pension. The first appeal against rejection of his disability pension was found to be time barred, therefore, his case for grant of disability pension could not be processed in terms of Para 2 of letter dated 17/5/2016 vide which the maximum time limit of five years has been fixed from the date of initial adjudication rejection for making an appeal. Further, the applicant might have suffered the disability while in service, but the same was neither attributable to nor aggravated by Air Force service and he suffered the same due to coming in contact with Congress Grass and, hence, on the request of the applicant he was posted to places which was free from Congress Grass. And the contention of the applicant with his own statement in the OA that on detection of disease of the applicant, he was immediately admitted in the Hospital and it was wrong on the part of the applicant to say that the disease occurred due to inadequate/non treatment at the right time that had led to this condition of disability. Since the disability, ”Allergic Contact Dermatitis Patch” was not attributable to Air Force service and the applicant was discharged from service in A4G1, he is not entitled to disability element in terms of

Para 173 of Pension Regulations for the Air Force, 1961, Part I and the OA filed by the applicant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

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 enrolled in the Air Force on 07/7/1971 and was discharged from service on 31/7/2000 under the clause, “on fulfilling the condition of enrolment”. He had rendered 29 years and 25 days of service and was granted Service Pension for the qualifying service. The applicant in his statement, had stated that he had faced the issue of ‘allergic reaction’ that occurred due to Parthenium Hysterophorus/Congress grass during the year 1981 and was treated at the Command Hospital, Chandigarh. Besides medical treatment, the Respondents had also been more considerate and keeping in view the condition of the applicant posted him to places which were free of congress grass. He was allowed to serve in the Air Force till completion of his terms and conditions of enrolment and was discharged from service only on 31/7/2000, which also shows that the Respondents, contrary to the statement of the applicant in the OA, had been more than sympathetic and had not take action in haste or shown any alacrity in discharging him from service upon detecting the allergic problem of the applicant. As per the statement of the Respondents, the applicant was discharged from service in A4G1, which clearly establishes that the applicant was not suffering from any disease at the time of his discharge from service. It is prudent to observe that a person voluntarily joining any Branch of the Armed Forces is mandated to serve in all the terrains and through the length and breadth of the country and a disease/disability that they may acquire cannot be stated to be due to service factors alone. In the instant case, the issue of allergic reaction faced by the applicant was purely due to environmental factor and/or due to a particular vegetation that could best be avoided by not residing at that particular area and cannot be termed as a disability acquired due to service. Towards

that end, the Respondents had ensured that the applicant was not posted where the congress grass was there. In view of the foregoing and since the applicant was discharged from service in “A4G1” with NIL diseases as also the fact that the allergic reaction occurs only when one is residing in an area where a particular grass is present in abundance and, hence, the plea of the applicant cannot be sustained.

7. Apart from the above, we also find that the Application stands barred by inordinate delay and laches of more than 22 years with no cogent reason for the inexplicable delay and, hence, it does not deserve to be entertained. For this reason of laches and inordinate delay, the Application by the Applicant is totally misconceived. 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.

8. In fine, we are of the considered view that we find no merit in any of the pleas of the Applicant and the OA is dismissed .

9. No order on costs.

10. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

cda/-