Armed Forces Tribunal

Ex Hav Dharam Pal vs UOI & Others on 24 April 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, JAIPUR

10.

OA 65/2025 with MA 93/2025

Army No 6913566N Ex Hav Dharam Pal, S/o Late Shri Gopal Ram, Resident of Village Sultana, Tehsil Khetri, Districtg Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan

…. Applicant

Versus

1.

UOI, through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Govt of India, New Delhi – 110 011

2.

AOC Records, PIN 900 453, c/o 56 APO

3.

PCDA (P), Prayagraj, UP

…. Respondents

For Applicant

: Ms. Anjali Minocha, Advocate

For Respondents

: Mr. Pradeep Mathur, Advocate

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, MEMBER (J)

HON’BLE MR. SANJIV MITTAL, MEMBER (A)

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

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…

O R D E R

24.04.2026

1. Undre Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has filed this OA praying for directing the Respondents to grant founding off benefits of his disability element of disability pension from 30% to 75% with all consequential benefits.

2. Vide Reply Statement filed by the Respondents in response to the OA, the Respondents have submitted that the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 09/11/1978 and was discharged from service on 30/11/2002 on fulfilling the conditions of his enrolment under Rule 13 (3) Item III (i) of Army Rules 1954. He had rendered 24 years and 22 days of service and was granted service pension for life. Since the applicant was in low medical category due to the disability, “Blast

Injury Right Hand (Optd)”, the duly constituted RMB held on 10/9/2022 assessed the said disability of the applicant @ Composite 30% for life and considered it as attributable to military service. Accordingly, the applicant was granted Disabiilty Element of Disabity Pension @30% duly rounded off to 50%wef 01/12/2002 for life. Hence, the applicant is not eligible for grant of broadbanding benefits to 75%.

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

4. It is seen from the documents on record that the applicant was discharged from service on 30/11/2002 on fulfilling the conditions of his enrolment under Rule 13 (3) Item III (i) of Army Rules 1954. He had rendered 24 years of service and was granted service pension for life. The RMB assessed the disability of the applicant, “Blast Injury Right Hand (Optd)” @ Composite 30% for life and considered it as attributable to military service as the injury sustained by the applicant while he was on bona fide military duty. The applicant was granted disability element of disability pension @30% wef 01/12/2002 for life vide PPO dated 25/4/2003, Annexure R/3, while Annexure R/6, copy of PPO dated 21/9/2024, reflects that the disability element of the applicant was rounded off to 50% wef 01/7/2024 for life.

5. In view of the foregoing and since the Respondents have not lucidly stated as to whether the rounding off benefits of disability element of disability pension to the applicant has been granted to the applicant from his date of discharge from service or earlier to the date of 01/7/2024 as cited on the PPO annexed at Annexure R/6, we deem it appropriate to remit the case of the applicant back to Respondents to grant rounding off benefits in terms of Judgment dated 12/2/2026 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UOI through its Secretary & Ors

Vs Sgt Girish Kumar & Anr Etc alongwith other Civil Appeals. The Respondents shall take a decision with regard to grant of benefit of rounding off of disability element to 50% to the applicant within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, if not already granted, prior to 01/7/2024. The prayer of the applicant for grant of rounding off benefits to 75% is a bit far fetched as the disability of the applicant was assessed @30% and not @50% or above, entitling his the benefits to 75% and, thus, the prayer is nothing but vexatious one and is, therefore, rejected.

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

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

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

cda/-

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead