KGM Verma vs UOI & Others on 28 November 2025

O R D E R

28/11/2025

1. By way of this Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in the matters of Air Force Act 1950 and Air Force Rules, 1969 and in the matter of Article 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India and in the matter of Principles of natural justice and fair play an equity, the Petitioner (hereinafter called the, “Applicant”) had filed SB Civil Writ Petition No 969/2006 before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jodhpur, praying for quashing and setting side the GCM proceedings dated 24/3/2005, Annexure A/2, and the Revision proceedings dated 25/5/2005 and the subsequent proceedings, Annexure A/3 and the Order dated 23/11/2005, Annexure A/6 passed by the Respondents and that the Respondents be directed to restore the rank, honour and prestige of the petitioner, as if the impugned orders never existed. He had further prayed for passing order in favour of the Petitioner which the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case as also award costs of the petition to the petitioner. He had also prayed that the punishment earlier awarded, ie, forfeiture of service for pension for a period of one year and Severe Reprimand, was revoked based on the orders of the confirming authority and was awarded the sentence to be reduced to rank of Corporal on 25/5/2005, which was confirmed by the confirming authority on 09/6/2005 and was promulgation on 20/6/2005. Further, the applicant filed Statutory Petition dated 26/5/2005 under Section 161 (2) of the Air Force Act, 1950 before the confirming authority but the same was not considered in right perspective. Vide Order dated 23/11/2005 and the Petition filed by the applicant was also rejected.

2. With the inception of Armed Forces Tribunal,Jaipur, Bench, the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur vide Order dated 27/11/2009 transferred the case to this Tribunal for adjudication. The Writ Petition was received at this Bench 14/2/2011 and numbered as TA No 10 of 2011.

3. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the applicant are that the applicant was promoted to the rank of Corporal and Sergeant and thereafter Paid Acting Junior Warrant Officer wef 01/8/2004. He worked with utmost zeal and dedication to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors to the best of his capacity and sincerity and the applicant gave his prime youth by giving his 21 and half years of service to the Nation. He had the duty of personally supervising the workers for proper setting of blocking mechanism of the seat of Aircraft. On 01/3/2002, the applicant had supervised the setting of blocking mechanism, set by Sgt DK Sharma, correctly on the Aircraftejection seat prior to its fitment on MiG2 BIS Aircraft. On 04/4/2002, SqnLdr PK Bundela of 32 Sqn, Air Force, the Pilot of the aircraft sustained injury due to improper ejection of the seat. The pilot subsequently died on 17/8/2002 after about 136 days of the accident. Accordingly, the applicant alongwithSgt DK Sharma, Ex WO RsDeswal and Sqn Ldr S Somasundaram were charge sheeted on 17/1/2005 under Section 62 (d) of the Air Force Act, 1950 – neglect in relation to Aircraft material causing loss of life, for their failure to ensure correct blocking mechanism on the aircraft and ordered these personnel to be tried by General Court Martial. Although the three personnel were involved in the case, but the WO RS Deswal was exonerated in spite of the fact that he was also levelled with the same charge but no proceedings were initiated against him. The GCM awarded punishment to all the three personnel involved, however, the punishment awarded to the applicant and Sgt DM Sharma was revised and another GCM was conducted and a more harsh punishment was given to them, while the punishment awarded to Sqn Ldr S Somasundaram is still not confirmed by the competent authority. The GCM, after examining the witnesses and recording the statement of defence witnesses under Section 143 of the Air Force Act, 1950 and passed sentence o 24/3/2005, whereby forfeiture of service for pension for a period of one year and Severe Reprimand was ordered against the applicant, Annexure A/2. However, the punishment awarded to the applicant was revoked by the Confirming Authority, ie, General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, and the applicant was awarded the sentence, “to be reduced to the rank of Corporal” on 25/5/2005. Further, the Hindustan Aeronautic Limited (HAL), that had gone into the investigation which was received on 25/4/2002, had concluded that the cause for injuries to the Pilot was near simultaneous firing of the ejection seat and the canopy. The HAL report has not been conclusive regarding determination of most probable cause of near simultaneous firing of ejection seat and canopy and it is reported that such an event could have taken place either by operation of T-Handle or by improper setting of blocking mechanism. Regarding the case of interlocking strap having been found cut, only doubt has been expressed in the HAL report. The PW – 2 has categorically submitted in his cross examination that he could not find out as to how the T Handle got operated and at what point of time. The fact regarding his admission that T Handle has been found operated in the photographs taken at the accident site, he further stated that the T Handle can get operated inadvertently. The same fact has also been substantiated by the findings of trials undertaken by PW-3, Wg Commander, NR Chitnis, who had been produced as an expert witness. Most importantly, the ejection seat was serviced by Sgt DK Sharma under the supervision of the applicant and the same was accordingly documented for, in ejection seat certificate of the aircraft. The documentary evidence of servicing being carried out on 01/3/2002 corroborate beyond doubt any shred of doubt that the applicant and Sgt Sharma carried out the servicing as per the laid down servicing schedules and ensured that the blocking mechanism was properly set. The prosecution has not contradicted the important documentary evidence by any other evidence to the contrary. Thereafter, the ejection seat of the aircraft had undergone vital and independent check by two independent supervisors, namely, WO RS Deswal and SqnLdr (then Flt Lt) S Somasundaram and after that the seat was taken for fitment to the aircraft. The applicant further submits that the prosecution has closed its case with a lengthy and investigative examination of PW-3, an expert witness, called under Rule 113 of Air Force Rules, 1969, to supplement its case. A close scrutiny of the entire evidence brought on record by the prosecution discloses one and only one aspect that the case of prosecution rests on conjectures and surmises. No concrete or even reasonable evidence points to a finger at the accused suggesting that he is responsible for the act of commission or omission he has been charged with. The applicant further submits that the Respondents form the very beginning has been vindictive against the applicant and had initiated no action against the person who is directly responsible for cause of accident even at the cost of completely ignoring the remarks of the Air Officer Commanding. Even the revision of punishment ordered by the confirming authority, the GCM was ordered one rank reduction in respect of Sgt DK Sharma, whereas two ranks reduction was ordered against the applicant, thus again denying the equal protection of law. Having been aggrieved, the applicant had filed this Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court, praying for relief.

4. The Respondents had filed a detailed Reply Statement before the Hon’ble High Court in response to the Writ Petition and at the outset submitted that the GCM proceedings and subsequent order passed by the Competent Authority were passed only after due application of mind and by following the due procedure as prescribed under the law. It is also relevant to mention that it is a judicial review of the process and not of the decision and as far as the present case is concerned, neither any illegality or irregularity has been pointed out nor has an error been committed by the Respondents while passing the orders. Therefore, this Hon’ble Court need not re-appreciate the evidence in the matter and hence, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The Respondents have further submitted that while the applicant was posted at 32 Sqn Air Force and while working as Armament Supervisor in CR and SS between 8/7/2001 to 3/12/2003 and on 01/4/2002, he was detailed as an Incharge to carry out 100 hours servicing on the ejection seat of aircraft No C/2829 as a supervisor. The seat was serviced by Sgt DR Sharma, co-accused as workman and the same was supervised by the applicant. While carrying out the servicing activity on 01/3/2002, he failed to ensure that the Blocking mechanism was set properly in the aircraft seat, prior to its fitment on aircraft, this has led to be the improper ejection of the pilot, SqnLdr VK Bundela of 32 Sqn, Air Force, while flying on 04/4/2002 and this improper ejection of the pilot resulted the bodily injuries to him and in consequence of such injuries, he died on 17/8/2002. An Enquiry was ordered to find out the case of accident and certain technical investigations were carried out by duly constituted investigation team. The said investigation team initially collected the evidence from the site of the accident and subsequently took the wreckage of the aircraft for the detailed technical investigation.

These investigations were initially carried out at the Air Force Station, Jodhpur and subsequently, the material recovered from the aircraft wreckage was taken to the National Aerospace Laboratory, Bengaluru for the analysis of canopy airframe parts retrieved from the wreckage of MiG 21 C 2829 aircraft and flying helmet. This was done by the technical investigating team and found an impact of the helmet on canopy, which indicated the helmet hitting the canopy frame. Thereafter, a high level technical investigating team was constituted to find further investigation at HAL Nasik and the investigating team found probable reason for pilot helmet hitting the canopy during the ejection process on 04/4/2002. However, the main cause which was found the near simultaneous operation of the firing of canopy main gun and the ejection seat gun. This kind of simultaneous operation can only take place in case of the Blocking Mechanism which is meant to introduce a delay between the firing mechanism of the canopy and ejection seat main gun fails. Therefore, on receipt of the final report from the investigating team, it was found that near simultaneous operation of canopy and ejection seat gun was due to the improper setting of the Blocking Mechanism during the 100 Hours of servicing carried out at Air Force Station, Jodhpur on the said aircraft. The 100 hours servicing was carried out by Sgt DK Sharma and the applicant supervised the said servicing and they had negligently omitted the task of proper fixing of blocking mechanism in ejection seat entrusted upon them which has cost the life of a fighter pilot and damage to the Govt of India. Hence, the GCM was ordered against the applicant and other co-accused and the applicant was given ample opportunity to defend his case during the GCM which adjudicated at the Air Force Station on 23/2/2005 and subsequent days. The case was actively defended by the applicant during his trial through a battery of civil counsels and complete series of events as brought out by the applicant at different stages of the trial were duly considered by the court martial before arriving at its findings. When the evidence recorded in the said proceedings are considered in its entirety, it reveals that no prejudice whatsoever has been caused to the Applicant during his defence. Thereafter,the Competent Authority by exercising the powers vested has passed a sentence vide Order dated 24/3/2005 and the same was revised by the competent authority and the sentence passed vide Order dated 24/3/2005 was revised to reduce the rank of Corporal vide Order dated 25/5/2005, based on the culpability of the applicant who was found blameworthy by the Court of Inquiry. The trial of Sqn Ldr S Somasundaram was conducted by a separate GCM and he was awarded the adequate sentence by the Court based on the evidence on record and punishment awarded to the applicant is nothing to do with the sentence awarded to the applicant and also, the sentence on the said SqnLdr S Somasundaram has no relationship with the sentence awarded to the applicant. And, the findings and sentence in the case of SqnLdr S Somasundaram has already confirmed and the applicant is submitting false information to the Hon’ble Court. The prosecution case is based on the unimpeachable and reliable evidence and the reports of the NAL and HAL which are the basis of the initiation of the investigation in this case were prepared in a highly technologically rich environment by a team of Scientists and professionals of country’s premier institutions in the field of Aircraft systems of Research and Design and Repair and Maintenance. Further, the Court Martial has found the applicant ‘Guilty’ of the solitary charge after due process of law and evidence on record of the GCM. The GCM members have themselves witnessed the complete sequence of ejection process at the MiG-21 Bison Tech Flight of Air Force Station, Jodhpur on the similar aircraft. An inadvertent operation by the pilot is also not possible as pilot’s both hands remain on the ejection handle. As regards the T Handle getting entangled with arm guard coming down during ejection process, PW-3 opined that this is an outside possibility , however, he clarified that he had not come across any such incidents in person or through feedback mechanism prevailing in the Indian Air Force. He substantiated the same by stating that he had carried out similar trials before facing the court and observed that in case of T Handle is entangled with arm guard netting it would result in operation of T Handle, however, this demonstration was practically carried out before the court and the Court observed that such possibility is only in case of T Handle is intentionally entangled with considerable effort. The Respondents further submit that the applicant himself had admitted that during the Simulation check, the Shear Screw was not put due to shortage of the said item, which was a very serious negligence, as the control of deliberate time delay between jettisoning of canopy of the aircraft and the ejection seat rest on this screw. In this version of the MiG fighter aircraft, the separation of the first firing of the cartridge of the canopy and with the fractional delay in the firing of the seat is maintained by this screw in the blocking mechanism (the blocking mechanism is a safety incorporated to ensure that the ejection seat commence its travel only after the canopy is jettisoned). And if the said screw is not fixed properly during servicing of the ejection seat (part of the 100 hours servicing of the aircraft) or the screw is missing due to forgetting at later stage or the improper setting of the screw then there would definitely be near simultaneous firing of canopy gun and the ejection seat gun and that had eventually led to the pilot’s helmet hitting to the canopy. Coupled with the detailed study carried out by both the National Aerospace Ltd and the HAL, which involved the detailed examination of the functioning of the ejection seat sequence with the help of expertise available at the HAL Maintenance facility at Nasik, the GCM had cross examined a highly qualified expert witness, Wing Commander NR Chitnis, PW3, who was extensively cross examined through a battery of three advocates, and during GCM the practical demonstration was carried out in the ejection seat bay of the MiG 21 Bison Tech flight of Air Force Station, Jodhpur on the similar aircraft. With regard to the restoration of rank is concerned, the Respondents have submitted that the restoration is allowed only to the substantive rank held by the employee (air men) prior to reduction of the ranks. Since the applicant was holding the active rank of JWO, therefore, the same cannot be restored as the same was not a substantive rank. With regards to the points elaborated by the applicant in his Rejoinder at Para 3, the Respondents have submitted that all the evidence placedon record by the applicant were duly considered/appreciated by the

Court in the GCM proceedings as well as by the AOC-in-C, HQ South Western Air Command and Chief of the Air Staff while considering the petition under Section 161 (1) of the Air Force Act before passing the order.

5. The Respondents, in compliance of directions passed by this Tribunal vide Order dated 22/7/2025, filed a reply on 14/11/2025 and submitted that the Applicant was enrolled in the Air Force on 03/7/1984 and was discharged from service on 31/1/2021 in the rank of Sub WO and he was considered for promotion to Junior Warrant Officer (JWO) on merit. However, certain promotions were withheld or not recommended during their respective boards in accordance with promotion policies. They have further elaborated that the applicant was promoted to the following ranks during the course of his service, post his punishment for the mishap :- (a) Acting JWO

: 01/8/2004

(b) Sub Sgt (Restoration) : 25/11/2005

(c) Acting JWO

: 01/3/2009

(d) Sub JWO

: 23/8/2012

(e) Acting WO

: 01/2/2015

(f) Sub WO

: 03/2/2015

6. We have heard both the parties extensively over a period of time and sifted through the material placed on record.

7. Having heard the parties and examining the material on record, it is evident that the applicant, while posted at 32Sqn Air Force was detailed as In-charge to carry out the 100 hours servicing on the ejection seat of aircraft No C/2829 as a supervisor. While the seat was serviced by Sgt DK Sharma, who was also a co-accusedas workman, the applicant herein was the supervisor. While carrying out the servicing activity on 01/3/2002, he failed to ensure that the Blocking Mechanism was set properly in the aircraft ejection seat, prior to its fitment on the aircraft, which led to the improper ejection of the Pilot, SqnLdr VK Bundela of 32 Sqn, Air Force, while flying on 04/4/2002 and this improper ejection of the Pilot resulted in bodily injuries to him consequent to which the Pilot succumbed to the injuries later on 17/8/2002. As was mandated and as per the laid down protocol and procedures in vogue, the Air Force Authorities had carried out the detailed investigation/analysis, duly assisted by the domain expert team from the National Aerospace Limited (NAL) and the Hindustan Aeronautic Ltd (HAL), which had opined that the unfortunate incident occurred due to the improper setting of the ejection seat of the aircraft, MiG-21 Bison, resulting in demise of the Pilot concerned. The duly constituted General Court Martial, after extensive hearing of both the defence and prosecution witnesses, had come to the conclusion that since the applicant was the incharge of servicing during the period, he was blameworthy for improper setting of the ejection seat and resultant death of the Pilot and sentenced and awarded, “to forfeit one year service for the purpose of pension and to be severely reprimanded”, on 24/3/2005. However, based on the observations of the Confirming Authority, the punishment awarded earlier was reversed and awarded the punishment of “to be reduced to the rank of Corporal”, on 25/5/2005. It is also evident from the statement of the Respondents to Rejoinder filed by the applicant that no prejudice had been meted out to the applicant as the wreckage collected from the accident site was evaluated with microscopic level technical investigation carried out by the both the premier institutions (NAL &HAL) in the field of aircraft design, repair and maintenance, which are on record with the GCM proceedings. Further, it is seen on record that the applicant was not subjected to any

ill-treatment because of the punishment and he was allowed to get various promotions in his time till he completed his terms of engagement.

8. In view of the foregoing, we are of the considered opinion that there was no illegality or infirmity in the action taken by the Respondents in the conduct of the GCM and the punishment awarded to the applicant, taking into account the gravity of the accident, ie, death of a well trained and qualified fighter pilot. It is also prudent to observe that the Competent Authority has gone into case threadbare and taking all aspects into consideration reduced the punishment awarded to the applicant to“to be reduced to the rank of Corporal” only from the initial punishment of forfeiture of service for pension for a period of one year and Severe Reprimand. Moreover, from the date of award of punishment on 25/5/2005, the applicant was allowed to serve for another 16 years and discharged from service on 31/1/2021 in the rank of Substantive WO, thereby granting him two more promotions in situ. It all shows that no prejudice or injustice has ever been meted out to the applicant by the Respondents. We, therefore, find no merit in the plea of the applicant for quashing and setting aside the GCM proceedings dated 24/3/2005 and subsequent orders with all consequential benefits as the Respondents have followed all due procedures/rules in vogue diligently, warranting our interference.

9. The TA is dismissed being devoid of merit.

10. No order on costs.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

cda/-

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, JAIPUR (CIRCUIT BENCH, JODHPUR)

10. OA 222/2024 with MA 340/2024

Army No 1070179M Ex LD Chauhan Keshari Singh Ajab Singh, S/o Late Shri Ajab Singh, Resident of Village and Post Kelyana, Tehsil Godhra, District Panchmahal, Gujarat – 388 710, currently residing at c/o Smt Sobha Kanwar, House No 532, Hanuwant A Sector, BJS Colony, Paota C Road, Jodhpur, Rajasthan- 342 006

…. Applicant

Versus

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

2. Chief of the Army Staff, Army HQ, DHQ PO, New Delhi – 110 011

3. The PCDA (P), Prayagraj, UP – 211 014

4. Armd Corps Records, PIN 900 476, c/o 56 APO

…. Respondents

For Applicant

: Mr. DS Rathore, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Samir Shrimali, Advocate

CORAM:

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

O R D E R

20.11.2025

1. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the applicant has filed this OA praying thataction of the Respondents for denying him the Disability Pension be quashed and set aside being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and further direct the Respondents to grant sanction and release 30% Disability Pension to the Applicant wef 09/8/1990 alongwith rounding off benefits to 50% wef 01/1/1996 for life.

2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the applicant are that the applicant who was enrolled in the Army on 20/3/1982 in medical category ‘AYE’ was invalided out from service on 08/8/1990 in medical category CEE Permanent after he had rendered eight years, four months and 19 days of service. However, he was not granted disability pension wef 09/8/1990. The applicant had sustained severe injury, “Compound Fracture Dislocation Ankle (Rt) (Optd)” on 03/5/1988 while he was on journey period during his annual leave from 29/4/1988 to 29/6/1988. He booked his personal motor cycle from Ferozepur Railway Station, ie, Unit location and boarded the same train to proceed to his home town, Godhra, Gujarat. At the railway station he had taken out his motor cycle from the Railway station and started journey to his native place, Amareshwar on the motor cycle. However, before reaching the destination, motor cycle slipped and he fell down while passing through a round circle and sustained injury. He was admitted to Military Hospital, Ahmedabad on 04/5/1988 at 1300 hours and because of the injury he was placed in low medical category wef 27/2/1990. Since he was placed in low medical category, his retention was not recommended and the applicant was discharged from service on 08/8/1990 despite the applicant having pleaded for his retention in service in his reply to the show cause notice. The RMB assessed the disability of the applicant @30% for two years and considered it as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. Disability pension claim of the applicant was rejected vide letter dated 28/11/1990 on the ground that the disability which the applicant suffered during his service in the Army on which his claim is based, is not attributable to nor aggravated by military service. However, despite concerted effort made by him, the applicant was not granted disability pension. Having been aggrieved, the applicant has filed this OA, praying for relief.

3. The Respondents have filed a Reply Statement. While not disputing the basic facts, the Respondents have submitted that the applicant was downgraded to low medical category due to the disability, ”Compound Potts Fracture (Rt)” wef 25/1/1989. Since suitable alternative appointment commensurate with his disability was not available in terms of Army Order 46/80 andhis retention in service was not justified in public interest and no shelter appointment was available in the Unit, a show cause notice was issuedand in response to it, the Applicant vide his reply dated 19/6/1990 stated that his ailment has been a hindrance in performing his duties and he would like to discontinue his service. Thus, the applicant was discharged from service on 08/8/1990 under Rule 13 (3) Item III (v) of Army Rule 1954 on medical grounds. He had rendered eight years, four months and 18 days of qualifying service. He was granted Invalid Gratuity of Rs 9095/- and DCRG of Rs 7223/-. Under the provisions of Army Order 3/89, the Invaliding Medical Board of the Applicant was held on 05/7/1990, wherein the disability of the applicant, “Compound Fracture Dislocation Ankle (Rt)” was assessed @30% for two years and considered it as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. The disability element of disability pension claim of the applicant was rejected vide PCDA (P) letter dated 28/11/1990, which was communicated to the applicant vide letter dated 22/12/1990, with an advice to the applicant to prefer an appeal, if so desired, within a period of six months. After a lapse of more than 31 years, the applicant submitted his time barred First Appeal dated 27/5/2022 for grant of disability pension, which was suitably replied to vide Record Office letter dated 25/6/2022. The Second Appeal dated 20/7/2022 preferred by the applicant, received through his Counsel was also replied to. The Respondents further submit that the applicant is not eligible for grant of disability element of disability pension in terms of Para 173 of Pension Regulations for the Army 1961, Part I, as the applicant sustained injury during his Annual Leave. With regard to the assessment of disability of the applicant, the Respondents have submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in its Judgment dated 20/8/2009 in Civil Appeal No 5678 of 2009, arising out of SLP No 23727 of 2008, in the case of

Damodaran AV Vs UOI &Ors, has viewed that the Medical Board is an expert body and its opinion is entitled to be given due weight, value and credence. Taking into consideration the ibid judgment, the applicant was not granted disability element of disability pension as his disability was considered as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service.

4. During the course of final hearing, Counsel for the Applicant fervently submitted that the applicant sustained injury while he was on journey period which was considered as duty and, hence, there is a causal connection between the injury sustained by the applicant and the military service, making him eligible for grant of disability pension.

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

6. Having heard and perused the material placed on record, it is apparent that the applicant himself had stated that he was on Annual Leave wef 29/4/1988 to 29/6/1988. He sustained injury on 04/5/1988 at around 1300 hours while riding on his motor cycle from Godhra Railway Station, which was his Nearest Railway Station (NRS) to his home town, Amareshwar, when the motor cycle which he was riding slipped and he fell down. He was downgraded to low medical category due to the injury wef25/01/1989. Retention of the applicant in service was not considered in organizational interest as no shelter appointment commensurate with his disability was available in the Regiment, necessitating issuing a Show Cause Notice to the applicant, as to why he should not be discharged from service being placed in Permanent low medical category. In reply to the show cause notice the applicant, stated that his ailment has become a hindrance in performing his duty and he would like to discontinue his service. Accordingly, Record Office issued Release Order of the applicant vide letter dated 05/6/1990. Eventually, the applicant was discharged from service wef 08/8/1990 under Rule 13 (3) Item III (v) of Army Rules, 1954 on medical grounds. The IMB assessed the disability of the applicant, “Compound Fracture Dislocation Ankle (Rt)” @30% for two years and considered it as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. He had rendered eight years, four months and 18 days of service, for which he was granted Invalid Gratuity as admissible under the Rules. As regards contention of the applicant that he was going to his home town on leave, it has been observed that the accident happened five days after his leave period started. Thus, it is clear that he was not on duty during leave period. Moreover, the Applicant has not substantiated his claim by way of any evidence. Thus it cannot be accepted.

7. The question on attributability or aggravation, where the disability or fatality occurs when the individual is on duty/authorized leave of any kind, has been settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The Secretary, Government of India & Others Vs Dharambir Singh in Civil Appeal No 4981/2012 decided on 20.09.2019, relevant portion of which reads as under :- “36. We find that summing up of the following guiding factors by the Tribunal in Jagtar Singh v. Union of India &Ors and approved in Sukhwant Singh and in Vijay Kumar do not warrant any change or modification and the claim of disability pension is required to be dealt with accordingly:- (a) The mere fact of a person being on 'duty' or otherwise, at the place of posting or on leave, is not the sole criteria for deciding attributability of disability/death. There has to be a relevant and reasonable causal connection, howsoever remote, between the incident resulting in such disability/death and military service for it to be attributable. This conditionality applies even when a person is posted and present in his unit. It should similarly apply when he is on leave; notwithstanding both being considered as 'duty'.

(b) If the injury suffered by the member of the Armed Force is the result of an act alien to the sphere of military service or in no way be connected to his being on duty as understood in the sense contemplated by Rule 12

of the Entitlement Rules 1982, it would not be legislative intention or nor to our mind would be permissible approach to generalise the statement that every injury suffered during such period of leave would necessarily be attributable”.

8. In yet another judgment by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UOI &OrsVs Ex Sep R Munusamy, Civil Appeal No 6536 of 2021, decided on 19/7/2022, held the view that :- “ …..the Tribunal patently erred in law in proceeding on the basis of a misconceived notion that any ailment or disability of a soldier, not noted at the time of recruitment but detected or diagnosed at the time of his discharge or earlier, would entitle the soldier to disability pension on the presumption that the disability was attributable to military service, whether or not the disability led to his discharge, and the onus was on the employer to prove otherwise, which the Appellants in this case had failed to do”.

9. Moreover, Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, while disposing off an appeal filed by Union of India against the verdict of AFT in the case titled UOI Vs Bhaskaran N (WP (C) No 8414 of 2024) has mentioned as follows :- “ …we are of the view that the AFT will not be justified in rejecting the opinion of the Medical Board in a casual manner in any case. Unless the Tribunal is satisfied that the procedure adopted by the Board was not in accordance with the Rules or binding Guidelines or that the Board failed to take into account any relevant materials or facts or has not given reasons for its conclusions, the Tribunal will not be justified in rejecting the opinion of the Board. If the Tribunal finds the opinion of the Board unacceptable for any such reasons it will be proper on the part of the Tribunal, except in case where there is long delay, to refer the applicant seeking disability pension for examination by a Review Medical Board. Substituting the opinion of the Medical Board with its own conclusions by the Tribunal may not be a proper approach. It is also be noted by the Tribunal that the opinion of the Medical Board is only recommendatory and is subject to acceptance by Pension Sanctioning Authority. Therefore, the Tribunal shall bear in mind that the opinion of the Medical Board does not confer any indefeasible right on the employee to claim disability pension”.

10. It is also prudent to observe the observations made by the Hon’ble Principal Bench, Armed Forces Tribunal in the Order dated 19/5/2023 in OA No 927 of 2022 in the case of Ex Hav Ashok Kumar Vs UOI &Ors, which reads as follows :- “16. We must reiterate that we are not medical specialists to scrutinize the opinion of the medical boards, and it would not only be beyond our jurisdiction but also hazardous if this Court were to examine the accuracy of such expert opinion, based on competing medical opinions. The scope of judicial review does not entail the Court embarking upon such misadventures. As far as judicial review of decisions based on medical expert opinion is concerned, there is no doubt that wide latitude is provided to the executive in such matters and the Court does not have the expertise to appreciate and decide on merits of medical issues on the basis of divergent medical opinion”.

11. With regard to grant Disability Pension, Para 173 of Pension Regulations for the Army 1961, Part I, reads as follows :- “Primary conditions for the grant of disability Pension.

173. Unless otherwise specifically provided a disability pension consisting of service element and disability element may be granted to an individual who is invalided out of service on account of a disability which is attributable to or aggravated by military service in non-battle casualty and is assessed at 20 per cent or over”.

12. With regard to grant of service pension, Para 132 of Pension Regulations for the Army 1961, Part I, reads as follows ;- “Minimum Qualifying Service for Pension.

132. The minimum period of qualifying service (without weightage) actually rendered and required for earning service pension shall be 15 years”.

13. Keeping in mind the Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court (Supra) and the clear parameters enunciated for determining attributability of Disability, we find no Causal Link between the disability of the Applicant and the Army Service as opined by the IMB. In this regard judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UOI &Ors Vs Jujhar Singh, Civil Appeal No 4281 of 2006, decided on 15/7/2011 as also in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence Vs Damodaran AV (Dead) through LRs &Ors, Civil Appeal No 5678 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) 23727 of 2008, decided on 20/8/2009 wherein it was held that the Medical Board is a Specialised Authority composed of expert medical doctors and it is the final authority to give information with regard to grant of disability element or otherwise hold good. Since the applicant had rendered a little over eight years service only, he is also not eligible for grant of Service Pension in terms of extant regulations.

14. Apart from the above, we also feel that the Application stands barred by inordinate delayand latches with no cogent reason for the inexplicable delay of more than three decades and it does not deserve to be entertained. In the light of the principles laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of C. Jacob Vs. Director of Geology and Mining &Anr., reported in (2008) 10 SCC 115, wherein it was held that a stale claim cannot be revived for grant of Pensionary benefits. The case is also covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UOI Vs Rajwanti, Civil Appeal No 583-584 of 2017, decided on 16/1/2017.

15. In fine, we are of the considered view that we find no merit in any of the pleas of the Applicant and the OA is accordingly dismissed.

16. No order on Costs.

17. Pending application, if any, also stand disposed off.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

cda/-