Smt Kiran Rathore wo late Col Sambhu Singh Rathore (Army) vs UOI & Others on 8 December 2025

O R D E R

08.12.2025

1. By way of this Application under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has filed this OA praying for directing the Respondents to grant Disability Element of Disability Pension duly rounded off to 50% for the lifetime of her husband and thereafter grant Special Family Pension to the Applicant wef 28.04.2014.

2. The brief facts as enunciated by the Applicant are that the Applicant’s husband was commissioned in the Army on 10.06.1978 and was discharged from Service on 31.07.2011. While in service, the Applicant’s husband served in Field and High Altitude Areas and, thus, due to stress and strain of military service, he suffered from Disabilities, viz., (i) “Diabetes Mellitus Type-II”, (ii) “Cataract Both Eyes” and (iii) Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia”. He was placed in low medical category in March 2007 and remained in the same category till his discharge from Service. The duly constituted Release Medical Board held at the time of his discharge considered the diseases as Neither Attributable to Nor

Aggravated by Military Service (NANA) and denied Disability Element of Disability Pension. The Applicant further submits that the disability “Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) was accidentally detected during routine medical check- up of her husband in year 2007 but as per the prescription of medical specialist, he was not given any treatment and due to which the disability continued to grow and aggravate. The Release Medical Board also did not prescribe any medicine to the Applicant’s husband. After retirement, the Applicant’s husband was re-employed and for the first time he was given treatment in the year 2012 and was further reviewed in year 2013 at Army Hospital (R&R) Delhi Cantt. Due to aggravation of his disease “Chronic Lymphotic Leukemia”, he was prematurely discharged from his re-employment on 02.11.2013. Thereafter, he died at Jodhpur on 28.04.2014. The Applicant submits that the Applicant’s husband died within seven years of his discharge from Service, therefore, the Applicant is eligible for grant of Special Family Pension in terms of Para 8(a) of Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 2008. The Applicant further submits that the treatment of her husband was faulty, unsatisfactory and delayed on part of Respondents and, hence, in terms of Para 10 (b) of Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 2008, the disability should be considered as Attributable to Military Service. The Applicant preferred Appeals against rejection of Disability Element of Disability Pension for the lifetime of her husband and, thereafter, Special Family Pension to the Applicant but to no avail. Therefore, the aggrieved Applicant has filed present OA.

3. The Respondents have filed a detailed Reply Statement and while not disputing the basic facts presented by the Applicant, they have submitted that the Applicant’s husband was superannuated from service and was not invalided out of service on medical grounds and his disabilities were considered as NANA by a duly constituted Release Medical Board. Therefore, he was not entitled for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension in terms of Rule 37 and 81 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008 (Part-1) as he was not fulfilling twin eligibility conditions for grant of Disability Pension. Further, the Applicant’s Husband died after his discharge from Service, which has no causal connection to military service. Further, as the disabilities of the Applicant’s husband were considered as NANA, the Applicant is not eligible for grant of Special Family Pension in terms of Rule 105 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008 (Part-1). In view of the aforesaid averments, the Respondents have reiterated that the OA is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

4. During the course of arguments, Learned Counsel for the Applicant vehemently submitted that despite detection of Chronic Lymphotic Leukemia in early 2007, her husband was not given proper treatment due to which the disability of her husband aggravated. The diagnosis/treatment of the disease was faulty, unsatisfactory and delayed on part of the Respondents and, hence, her husband was entitled for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension in terms of Rule 10 (b) (iv) of Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 2008. Further, the Respondents have not mentioned the cause of onset of the disease and, hence, his disability should be conceded as Attributable to Military Service in terms of Rule 10 (b) (iii) of aforesaid Entitlement Rules. In view of the aforesaid averments, the Learned Counsel for the Applicant prayed that the Respondents may be directed to decide the case in terms of aforesaid Rule position.

5. In view of the facts presented by the Applicant and the Respondents, it is clear that the Applicant’s husband was not granted Disability Element as the disabilities were opined as NANA. Moreover, Special Family Pension cannot be granted on the same grounds as his death was not hastened by a disability which had affected him due to Army Service factors. However, taking note of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that in case the Applicant makes a fresh representation along with relevant medical records which establish delayed, faulty or unsatisfactory treatment of her husband while in service, the Respondent shall decide the case of the Applicant with regard to her prayer in the OA within a period of six month thereafter in terms of Para 10 (b) (iii) & (iv) of Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 2008 and extant rules/regulations/ policies. The outcome thereof shall be intimated to the Applicant.

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

7. No order on costs.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

Ssy/-