Ex Dfr Dharampal Singh (Army) vs UOI & Others on 13 October 2025

O R D E R

13.10.2025 MA No 314/2019

1. The Applicant has filed this MA, praying for condonation of delay involved in filing the OA. Taking into consideration the reasons stated therein, the Application for condonation of delay is allowed and MA is disposed off accordingly.

OA No 219/2021

2. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has filed this OA praying forquashing and setting aside the letter/Order dated

01/9/2003 passed by the Respondent No 3 vide which intimation was given to the Applicant vide letters dated 06/10/2003, 03/12/2014 and 02/5/2016, Annexure A1, A/5 & A/6 respectively and further the findings of the medical authorities on which impugned order was based may also be quashed and set aside. He further prays for directing the Respondents to grant disability pension with rounding off benefits wef 01/4/2003 for life, treating the disability as 50%.

3. Vide Repy Statement, the Respondents have submitted that the Applicant was enrolled in the Army on 07/7/1982 and was discharged from service on 31/3/2003 under Rule 13 (3) item (iii) (v) of the Army Rules 1954 read in conjunction with Sub Rule 2 A being placed in medical category lower than ‘AYE’ and not upto the prescribed military physical standard to continue in service. He had rendered 20 years, eight months and 25 days of service. The applicant was granted service pension for life wef 01/4/2003, which has been revised from time to time. Since the applicant was in low medical category for the disability, “Primary Hypertension” wef 04/12/2000, his continuation in service was not recommended by the Commanding Officer of the Unit despite his willingness to continue in service as expressed in his reply to the Show Cause Notice issued to him because of his low medical category. The RMB considered the disabilities of the applicant, (i) “Primary Hypertension” as aggravated by military service and

(ii) “Obesity” as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, with both the disabilities having been assessed @composite 30% for life. However, the applicant was not granted disability element of disability pension.

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

5. From foregoing, it is evident that the applicant was discharged from service on 31/3/2003 in low medical category under Rule 13 (3) item III (v) being placed in low medical category lower than SHAPE-1 and not upto the prescribed military physical standard.He had rendered 20 years and 10 months of service, for which he was granted service pension for life. The duly constituted RMB held on 10/12/2002 assessed the disabilities of the applicant, “Primary Hypertension” @30% for life and (ii) “Obesity” @1-5% for life, with Composite assessment @30% for life. While the duly constituted RMB assessed the first disability of the applicant, ie, Primary Hypertension as not attributable to, but aggravated military service due to stress and strain of military service as noted by the RMB at Page No 3 of the medical board proceedingts, the second disability, Obesity was considered as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service as also not connected with service. However, disability element claim of the applicant was rejected by the MA (P)/PCDA (P). His First and Second Appeals against rejection of his claim were also rejected by the competent authority.

6. In view of foregoing and since MA (P) at the PCDA (P) had overstepped in ignoring the opinion expressed by the duly constituted RSM, which considered the first disability of the Applicant as aggravated by military service owing to stress and strain of military service, the decision of which was arbitrary and was not in congruence of the ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court on the matter, we are of the considered view that the applicant is eligible for grant of disability element of disability pension for the first disability (Primary Hypertenion) which was considered as aggravated by military service assessed @30% for life alongwith rounding off benefits from the date of his discharge from service. However, the arrears need to be restricted to three years prior to the date of filing of the OA in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UOI & Ors Vs Tarsem Singh 2008 (8) SCC 648. OA has been filed on 12/3/2019. The applicant is not eligible for grant of disability element of pension for the second disability, “Obesity”.

OA 219/2021 with MA 314/2019 filed by No 1071491F Ex Dfr Dharampal Singh Badsara

7. In fine, the OA is allowed and the Respondents are directed to grant disability element of disability pension @30% duly rounded off to 50% wef 12/3/2016 to the applicant for life. The arrears shall be paid to the applicant within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, failing which, interest @6% pa shall be admissible to the applicant till the actual date of its payment.

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

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

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

cda/-