Hony Nb Sub Sedu Ram (Army) vs UOI & Others on 21 August 2025

**O R D E R**

**यतो न्यायः 21.08.2025**

1. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has filed this OA praying for directing the Respondents to grant disability pension to the applicant wef 01/9/1993 for life alongwith benefit of rounding off wef 01/1/1996.


2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the applicant are that the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 21/8/1971 and was discharged from service on 01/9/1993 on fulfilling his terms of engagement. He had rendered 22 years and 11 days of service and was granted service pension for life. However, he was not granted disability pension for the disability suffered by him during service. Having been aggrieved, the applicant has filed this OA praying for relief.

3. The Respondents have filed a Reply Statement and have submitted that the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 21/8/1971 and on completion of his basic training he was posted to 10-PARA wef 05/4/1972. While in service, the applicant was diagnosed as a case of Bilateral Primary Pigmentary Dystrophy Retina Both Eyes wef 15/6/1978 and was downgraded to medical category BEE (Temporary) which was subsequently reviewed from time to time and was placed in low medical category Permanent wef 08/10/1979. The applicant was promoted to the rank of Havildar on 01/4/1987. Since he was in low medical category he was not recommended for extension of two years by the screening board. Accordingly, he was discharged from service on 31/8/1993 after completion of 22 years and 10 days of service, ie on completion of terms and condition of his engagement/enrolment under Rule 13 (3) Item III (1) of Army Rules 1954. He was granted service pension for the qualifying service, which was revised from time to time in terms of policy on the subject. The RMB assessed the disability of the applicant, "Bilateral Primary Pigmentary Dystrophy of Retina" @30% for life and considered it as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service and no causal connection with service could be established. The medical board proceedings were approved by DDMS, HQ 12 Corps. Therefore, the applicant was not granted disability element of disability pension in terms of Para 173 of Pension Regulations for the Army 1961, Part I. Rejection of disability element claim of the applicant was communicated to the applicant vide letter dated 18/1/1994 and advised him to prefer an appeal against the rejection within a period six months, 

if so desired. However, instead of preferring any Appeal against the rejection of his disability pension claim, the applicant after a delay of more than 18 years, forwarded an application dated 26/11/2012, requesting for supply of medical board proceedings, which was sent to him vide letter dated 02/2/2013. Further, the OA filed after a delay of more than 23 years has become extremely time barred and is in contravention to Section 22 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007 and, hence, the OA is liable to be dismissed at the initial stage itself.


सत्यमेव जयते

4. We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

5. Perusal of record reveal that the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 21/8/1971 and was discharged from service on 31/8/1993 on completion of his terms and condition of engagement/enrolment under Rule 13 (3) Item III (i) of Army Rules 1954. He had rendered 22 years and 10 days of service for which he was granted service pension for life. The RMB assessed the disability of the applicant, "Primary Pigmentry Dystrophy of Retina" @30% for life and considered it as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service as no causal connection of the disability with Military Service could be established. He was, therefore, not granted disability element of disability pension. The rejection of the claim of the applicant was communicated to him by the Respondents vide their letter dated 29/1/1994, but the applicant has not preferred any appeal as is mandated. In view of the foregoing, we deem it appropriate to direct the applicant to take recourse to alternative remedy first and to submit an Appeal against the rejection of his disability pension claim for consideration of the Respondents. We condone the delay involved in filing the Appeal against the rejection of his claim for disability element of disability pension.


6. Therefore, in case the applicant submits an Appeal against rejection of his disability element of disability pension to the Competent Authority within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, the Respondents shall reconsider the prayer of the applicant in accordance with extant rules/policies on the subject within six months of the receipt of such a representation at their end. The outcome thereof may be intimated to the applicant accordingly. In case his appeal is accepted and it is decided that the applicant is to be paid Disability Element of Disability Pension, it is directed that the payment of arrears on this account be restricted to three years prior to the date of filing of the OA, ie, 24/7/2014 (OA filed on 24/7/2017), in terms of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UOI & Ors Vs Tarsem Singh, 2008 (8) SCC 648.

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

8. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed off.

(SANJIV MITTAL) MEMBER (A)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (J)

cda/-