Armed Forces Tribunal
Ex Nk Jhumar Ram vs UOI & Others on 21 May 2026
ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, JAIPUR
CIRCUIT BENCH AT JODHPUR
11.
OA No 48/2025 with MA No 71/2025
No-2878450Y Ex Nk (GD) Jhumar Ram, S/o
Late Shri Hamira Ram, R/o VPO-Chamu,
Distt-Jodhpur(Raj) – 342306
…. Applicant
Versus
1.
The Union of India, throughits Secretaryof the Govt of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi – 110011
2.
The Chief of the Army Staff, IHQ of MoD (Army), DHQ PO, New Delhi – 110011
3.
ThePCDA (P), Draupadi Ghat,
Prayagraj (UP)-211014
4.
DSC Records, PIN-901277, C/o 56 APO
…. Respondents
For Applicant
: Mr.DS Rathore, Advocate
For Respondents
: Dr. Yuvraj Singh,Senior Panel Counsel
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
21.05.2026
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 along with benefits of broad banding wef 01.10.2019and that the arrears be paid along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of discharge to the actualdate of payment to the Applicant.
2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the Applicant are that initially the Applicant served in Army for more than 17 years of service for which he is in receipt of Service Pension for life wef 01.03.1998. Thereafter, the Applicant got re-enrolled in DSC on 23.11.1998 and after rendering 20 years, 10 months and eight days of service, he was discharged from DSC Service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.09.2019 for which he has been granted Service Pension for life wef 01.10.2019. At the time of discharge from DSC Service, the duly constituted Release Medical Board assessed his disability “Coronary Artery Disease Non Obstructive Coronaries” @ 30% for life and considered it as Neither Attributable to Nor Aggravated by Military Service (NANA). Disability Pension claim of the Applicant was rejected by the PCDA (P) on the grounds of the disability being opined as NANA and the fact of rejection of his disability pension claim was communicated to the Applicant with an advice to prefer an Appeal, if he was not satisfied with rejection of the disability pension claim. However, the Applicant did not file any Appeal. On knowing his entitlement of disability pension, the Applicant issued Legal Notice on 12.09.2024 to the Respondents for grant of Disability Pension along with Rounding Off benefits but to no avail. The Applicant has placed reliance on Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment dt 02.07.2013 in Civil Appeal No 4949/2013 in the case of Dharamvir Singh Vs UOI & Ors and UOI & Anr Vs Rajbir Singh, JT 2015(2) SC 392 and contended that he joined DSC Service in physically and medically fit condition and he suffered from the disability in service due to service factors. Therefore, his disability should be considered as Attributable to or Aggravated by Military Service and the Applicant be granted Disability Element of Disability Pension duly rounded off to 50% for life from the date of his discharge from Service.
3. The Respondents have filed a detailed Reply Statement andwhile not disputing the basic facts presented by the Applicant, they have submitted that the Applicant was discharged from service on completion of terms of engagement and not on medical grounds and his disability was considered as NANA, therefore, he is not eligible for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension in terms of 53(a) of Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008. Further, the Applicant was advised to file an Appeal, if he was not satisfied with the rejection of his disability pension claim, however, he did not avail the remedy of 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. It is not in dispute that the Disability Pension claim of the Applicant was rejected by PCDA (P) on the grounds of the disability having been opined as NANA. The Applicant was advised to prefer an Appeal against rejection of disability pension claim, if he was not satisfied with the decision of the Competent Authority, however, he did not prefer any Appeal.
6. Keeping in view the fact that the Applicant is a Naikand he did not file an Appeal before the Competent Authority against the rejection of his Disability Pension claim andsince now he has filed this present Application before this Tribunal after a delay of approximately 5 years of rejection of Disability Pension claim, we deem it appropriate to direct that in case the Applicant makes a fresh Appeal before the Competent Authority against rejection of his Disability Pension claim within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order, the Competent Authority shall decide the Appeal within a period of six months thereafter as per extant rules/regulations/policies and the outcome shall be informed to the Applicant.
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/-