UOI & Others vs Ex Ald Jeevan Singh on 30 January 2026

O R D E R

30.01.2026

1. By way of this Application under Section 18 of the Armed Forces Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2008, read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, the Applicant has filed this RA for Review of Order dt 27.02.2025 passed by this Tribunal in OA No 512/2022.

2. OA No 512/2022 was disposed by this Tribunal vide Order dt 27.02.2025 with the directions thus ”Resultantly, the OA is partially allowed. The Respondents are directed to grant Disability Element of Disability Pension @30% along with Rounding Off benefits to 50% to the Applicant for two years wef 09.09.1992 to 08.09.1994 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. In default thereof, the arrears shall carry interest at the rate of 6% pa till the date of actual payment. Further, the Respondents are directed to constitute a onetime RAMB at the designated Military Hospital for the examination of the Applicant towards the aforesaid purpose within eight months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order and to inform the Applicant the date and venue for his presence. The RAMB will give its opinion on the present medical condition of the Applicant for the said Disability, “Fracture Both Bone (Rt) Forearm”, and assess the degree of Disability and the probable duration of the degree of disablement along with any other observation relevant to the case. The findings of the RAMB shall be placed before the Respondents to decide on grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension to the Applicant in accordance with extant rules/regulations with effect from the date of holding of the RAMB”. The Applicants-Respondents submits the policy for rounding off has been made applicable wef 01.01.1996 whereas the Rounding Off benefit has been granted to the Applicant from 09.09.1992 to 08.09.1994,ie., the date of applicability of the policy. The Tribunal have the powers as are vested in a Civil Court under Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (5 of 1908) for review of its orders. In view of the aforesaid facts, the Applicant has filed this Review Application.

3. We have heard Learned Counsels for both the parties and perused the material placed on record.

4. It is settled law that in exercise of Review jurisdiction, the Court cannot re- appreciate the evidence to arrive at a different conclusion even if two views are possiblein a matter. In Review jurisdiction, the Hon’ble Apex Court in series of decisions observed that the review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. In the case of Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati & Others, (2013) 8 SCC 320, the principles for exercising review jurisdiction were succinctly summarized as under:- “20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:

20.1. When the review will be maintainable:

(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;

(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;

(iii) Any other sufficient reason.

The words “any other sufficient reason” has been interpreted in Chajju Ram Vs Neki, AIR 1922 PC 112, and approved by this Court in Moran Mar BasseliosCatholicos Vs Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius &Ors, 1955 SCR 520, to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule”. The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India Vs Sandur Manganese &Iron Ores Ltd &Ors, (2013) 8 SCC 337.”

5. Taking note of overall facts and circumstances of the case and also that the policy for grant of rounding off benefits came into effect wef 01.01.1996 and this Tribunal is empowered to review its decisions, we deem it appropriate to review Order dt27.02.2025 in OA No 512/2022 in order to do full and effective justice as per law. We direct that Para 9 of this Tribunal Order dt 27.02.2025 in OA 512/2022 be substituted and read as under:- “9. Resultantly, the OA is partially allowed. The Respondents are directed to grant Disability Element of Disability Pension @30% to the Applicant for two years wef 09.09.1992 to 08.09.1994 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. In default thereof, the arrears shall carry interest at the rate of 6% pa till the date of actual payment. Further, the Respondents are directed to constitute a onetime RAMB at the designated Military Hospital for the examination of the Applicant towards the aforesaid purpose within eight months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order and to inform the Applicant the date and venue for his presence. The RAMB will give its opinion on the present medical condition of the Applicant for the said Disability, “Fracture Both Bone (Rt) Forearm”, and assess the degree of Disability and the probable duration of the degree of disablement along with any other observation relevant to the case. The findings of the RAMB shall be placed before the Respondents to decide on grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension to the Applicant in accordance with extant rules/regulations with effect from the date of holding of the RAMB”

6. The Review Application is disposed off, accordingly. Pending Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, also stand disposed off.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

Ssy/-