Armed Forces Tribunal
Ex Nk Mohammad Ishak vs UOI & Others on 7 May 2026
**ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, JAIPUR**
27.
**OA No 139/2025 with MA No 207/2025**
No-1047114M Ex Nk Mohammad Ishak, S/o Shri Tej Mohammad, R/o Ward No-7, Village-Jhanjhot, Post-Khudotteh Chirawa, Distt-Jhunjhunu (Raj) - 333027 .... Applicant
Versus
1. 1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, Govt of India, New Delhi-110011
2. 2. The AG's Branch, IHQ of MoD (Army), South Block, New Delhi - 110011
3. 3. Officer Incharge, Record Office, Armoured Corps PIN-900476, C/o 56 APO
4. 4. The Chief Controller, PCDA (P), Draupadi Ghat, .... Respondents Prayagraj (UP) - 211014
For Applicant : Ms. Shweta Pareek Roy/Gourav Sharma, 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
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.
**ORDER**
**07.05.2026**
1. 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 Pension to the Applicant along with Rounding Off benefit of Disability Element of Disability Pension from his date of discharge from Service and that the arrears be paid along with interest @ 18% per annum.
2. 2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the Applicant are that the Applicant was enrolled in the Army on 23.12.1970 and after rendering 17 years of service, he was invalided out of Service on 24.01.1987 on medical grounds due to Disability "Affective Disorder". The Applicant has been granted Service Pension for life, however, Disability Element of Disability Pension has not been granted on the grounds that his disability was considered as Neither Attributable to Nor Aggravated by Military Service (NANA). The Applicant has contended that he joined military service in physically and medically fit condition and he suffered from the Disability due to service factors and, hence, his disability should be considered as Attributable to or Aggravated by Military Service. The Applicant has also placed reliance on Hon'ble Supreme Court judgments in the case of Capt KJS Buttar Vs UOI & Ors, SCC 2011 XI 429 and UOI & Ors Vs Ram Avtar (2014) SCC Online 1761 and submitted that he is eligible for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension along with Rounding Off benefit. The Applicant made appeal against rejection of Disability Pension claim but the same was rejected vide impugned Order dt 26.04.2018. Therefore, the aggrieved Applicant has filed present OA.
3. The Respondents have filed a detailed reply to the Application and have submitted that the Applicant was invalided out of Service on 28.12.1986 after rendering 16 years, and 4 days of service on medical grounds. At the time of invalidment, the Invaliding Medical Board assessed his disability @ 40% for two years and considered it as NANA. Therefore, the Applicant is not entitled for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension in terms of Para 173 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part-I). The claim for grant of Disability Pension was rejected by PCDA (P) and the same was communicated to him vide letter dt 25.09.1987 with an advice to prefer an Appeal, if he was not satisfied with rejection of his Disability Pension claim. However, he did not prefer any Appeal. After a delay of more than 30 years, the Applicant submitted petition dt 05.04.2017 for grant of Disability Pension which was rejected by the Competent Authority on the grounds of delay. 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 time barred petition filed by the Applicant on 05.04.2017 was rejected by the Respondents on the grounds of delay and not on merit. We are of the considered view that this being a pensionary matter, the petition should have been decided on merit and not on the grounds of delay.
6. Taking note of overall facts and circumstances of the case as also the fact that the petition of the Applicant was not decided by the Respondents on merit, we deem it appropriate to direct that in case the Applicant makes a fresh Appeal before the Competent Authority with regard to his prayer in the OA within a period of one month of receipt of a certified copy of this Order, the Competent Authority shall decide the Appeal of the Applicant on merit within a period of four months thereafter. The outcome thereof shall be intimated to the Applicant. Needless to say, if the Applicant is not satisfied with outcome of the Appeal, he shall be at liberty to file fresh petition before this Tribunal.
7. The OA is disposed off, accordingly. Pending Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, also stand disposed off.
8. No order on costs.
(SANJIV MITTAL) MEMBER (A)
(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (J)
Ssy/-
