Ex Nk Raj Kishor vs UOI & Others on 29 September 2026

O R D E R

29.09.2026

1. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the applicant has filed this OA praying for quashing and setting aside the action of the Respondents being illegal, arbitrary unjust and unconstitutional and that by an appropriate writ, order and direction in the nature thereof, the Respondents be directed to determine, sanction and release disability element @ 64% alongwith its rounding off to 75% wef 01/6/2024, ie, from the date of discharge of the applicant with 8% interest from the date of due to the date of actual payment to the applicant.

2. Vide Reply Statement, the Respondents have submitted that the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 04/12/2006 and was discharged from service on 31/5/2024 under Rule 13 (3) item III (a) (i) of Army Rules 1954 being placed in low medical category and non availability of sheltered appointment in the Unit. The duly constituted RMB assessed the disability of the applicant, “Essential Primary Hypertension” @ 64% for life and considered it as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. Accordingly, the competent authority, upon adjudication of the matter, decided that the applicant is not eligible for grant of disability element in terms of Para 53 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008, Part I, which was duly communicated to the applicant. The applicant preferred First Appeal dated 26/10/2024 for grant of disability element, which was rejected by the Appellate Committee on First Appeals vide their letter dated 15/4/2025 on the ground that the disability of the applicant is held to be neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service as it does not fulfill the conditions laid down as per Rules 8, 11 and 12 of the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Award to the Armed Forces Tribunal Personnel, 2023, read in conjunction with Para 43 Chapter of GMO 2023. This factual position was communicated to the applicant vide Record Office letter dated 09/5/2025 with an advice to prefer Second Appeal to the Second Appellate Committee on Pension (SACP) within six months from the date of receipt of the ibid letter. However, the applicant chose not to prefer second appeal against the rejection of his First Appeal till date and filed this OA instead.

3. During the course of arguments, counsel for the Respondents has raised objection with regard to maintainability of this OA at this Tribunal as he has not preferred Second Appeal against rejection of his first Appeal as advised to him vide Records The Mahar Inf Regiment letter dated 09/5/2025, Annexure R/5, before the Second Appellate Committee on Pension (SACP) within the stipulated period of six months. Since the alternative remedy which was available to the applicant has not been availed by the applicant, the OA is not entertainable at this state.

4. Taking note of overall facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to order that in case the applicant submits Second Appeal before the Second Appellate Committee on Pension (SACP) against Order dated 15/4/2025, Annexure A/4, which was duly communicated to the applicant vide Record Office letter dated 09/5/2025, Annexure A/5, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, the Appellate Committee is expected to take into consideration and take note of all the objections and points detailed by the applicant in the OA and in the First Appeal submitted by him and after taking into consideration all the aspects pertaining to the grant of disability element to the applicant shall issue a Speaking Order in accordance with prevailing rules and regulations and the relevant policies within a period of six months from the date of receipt of such Second Appeal from the Applicant. The decision thereof shall be communicated to the applicant accordingly.

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

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

cda/-