Ex Ris Swaroop Ram vs UOI & Others on 19 March 2026

O R D E R

19.03.2026

1. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has filed this OA praying for directing the Respondents to sanction 50% disability element of disability pension to the applicant alongwith its rounding off to 75% wef 01/2/2013 for life by treating the disability of the applicant as attributable to and aggravated by military service with interest @8% thereon from the due date till the actual payment to the applicant.

2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the applicant are that the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 16/3/1989 in medical category ‘AYE’. While in service, the applicant suffered from the disease, “Rod and Cone Dystrophy Both Eyes ” in Jun 2009. He was discharged from service wef

31/1/2013 under Rule 13 (3) Item 1 (ii) (a) (i) due to non availability of sheltered appointment in the unit. He had rendered 23 years, 10 months and 16 days of qualifying service and was granted service pension of Group ‘Y’ for life which has been revised from time to time. Disability of the applicant occurred while the applicant was deployed in Mahajan Field Firing Range at Suratgarh, Rajasthan when a round fired by No 4 Tank of his line, smoke with flash hit the face of the applicant, affecting both the eyes of the applicant and he lost his eyesight. After initial treatment at Suratgarh the applicant was transferred to Army Hospital, New Delhi and ultimately he was downgraded to low medical category wef 19/10/2009 for two years, which was late upgraded to E2 (Permanent) wef October 2011. The RMB held on 06/10/2012 prior to his discharge from service assessed the disability of the applicant @50% for life and considered it as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. The applicant further submitted that since the applicant was discharged from service before completion of his terms of engagement, as the sheltered appointment given to him was withdrawn by his Commanding Officer, discharge of the applicant shall be deemed to have been invalided out from service for the purpose of entitlement rules laid down in Appendix II to Rule 173 A of Pension Regulations for the Army 1961,Part I. Despite best efforts of the applicant and a legal notice dated 18/1/2017 served upon the Respondents, the Respondents have not paid any heed to the request of the applicant. Having been aggrieved, the applicant has filed this OA, praying for relief.

3. The Respondents have filed a Reply Statement. While not disputing the basic facts, the Respondents have stated that the onset of disability of the applicant, “Rod and Cone Dystrophy Both Eyes”, was while he was serving with 67 Armoured Regiment in June 2009 when his Squadron was deployed in Semi Field Area for the field firing practice at Mahajan Field Firing Range, Suratgarh,

Rajasthan. He was deployed on No 9th T-72 Tank and when a round fired by No 4 Tank of his line, smoke with flash hit his face and both eyes of the applicant got affected and he lost his eyesight , which was reported to his Squadron Commander. After his treatment at Suratgarh and later at Command Hospital, Chandigarh and at Army Hospital (RR), New Delhi, the applicant was downgraded to low medical category wef 19/10/2009. He was discharged from service wef 31/1/2013 before completion of his terms of engagement as the sheltered appointment given to him was withdrawn by his Commanding Officer and therefore, discharge of the applicant shall be deemed to have been invalided out from service for the purpose of entitlement rules laid down in Appendix II to Rule 173 A of Pension Regulations for the Army 1961, Part I. The RMB assessed the disability of the applicant @ 50% for life and considered it as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. As the disability of the applicant has been categorized as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service (NANA), he is not eligible for disability element of disability pension.

4. We have heard the counsels for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

5. It is evident from the material on record and unambiguous statement made by the Respondents vide their Reply Statement that the applicant sustained injury on his both eyes while he was participating in field firing at Mahajan Field Firing Range at Suratgarh, Rajasthan in the month of June 2009, when a round fired by one of the tanks of his line, smoke with flash hit on his face, resulting in loss of vision. The duly constituted RMB held prior to his discharge from service assessed the disability of the applicant @50% for life and considered it as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. The Applicant was discharged from service wef 31/1/2013 under Rule 13 (3) item I III (b) in conjunction with Sub Rule 2 A being placed in low medical category lower than AYE and not upto the prescribed military physical standard. He had rendered 23 years, 10 months and 16 days of service and was granted service pension for life which has been revised from time to time. Notwithstanding the opinion expressed by the duly constituted RMB terming the disability of the applicant as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, the Respondents have in no uncertain terms stated in their Reply statement that the discharge of the applicant shall be deemed to have been invalided out from service. The RMB in its opinion has stated that the disability which the applicant suffered viz, ‘Rod and Cone Eye Dystrophy’ is hereditary and unrelated to service. However, the fact remains that even if it is hereditary, the applicant sustained injury on both his eyes during firing practice at the Field Firing Range and it might have triggered the onset of disability. Hence, the disability suffered by the applicant needs to be considered as attributable to military service. Moreover, he was discharged from service because of withdrawal of sheltered appointment given to him. The applicant is, thus, clearly eligible for grant of disability element of disability pension @50% wef the date of his discharge from service for life. However, the applicant is not eligible for grant of Broadbanding benefits of his disability element as the disability was assessed @50% only, in terms of latest policy on the subject. Since there has been a delay of more than eleven years in filing the OA, the arrears need to be restricted to three years prior to the date of filing of the OA. OA has been filed on 13/11/2024.

6. In fine, the OA is allowed and the Respondents are directed to grant disability element of disability pension @50% to the applicant wef 13/11/2021 for life. The arrears shall be paid to the applicant within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, failing which, the applicant shall be entitled to receive interest @6% till the date of its actual payment.

7. The OA is disposed off accordingly. No order on costs.

8. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed off

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

cda/-