Ex PO ART IV Sanjay Kumar vs UOI & Others on 23 July 2025

1. 1. Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi – 110011.

2. 2. The Chief of Naval Staff, CONS Sectt, South Block, IHQ of MoD (Navy), DHQ PO, New Delhi-110011

3. 3. The Appellate Committee on First Appeals (ACFA), Through The Chief of Naval Staff. (for- Principal Director of Pay & Allowances), IHQ of MoD (Navy), D-II Wing, Sena Bhawan, New Delhi – 110011

4. 4. Chief Pension Officer, Naval Pension Office, C/o INS Tanaji, Sion-Trombay Road, Mankhurd, Mumbai (Mah) – 400088

5. 5. Officer-in-Charge (Pension), Naval Pension Office, C/o INS Tanaji, Sion-Trombay Road, Mankhurd, Mumbai (Mah) – 400088 ..... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. ML Deora, Advocate For Respondents : Dr. Samir Shrimali, Advocate

**CORAM:**

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


1. By way of this Application under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has prayed for directing the Respondents to grant Disability Element of Disability Pension @ 20% along with rounding off benefits to 50% along with consequential benefits from the date of his discharge.

2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the Applicant are that the Applicant was enrolled in the Navy on 01.02.2006 and after completion of terms of engagement he was discharged from Service on 31.01.2021 for which he has been granted Service Pension for life. While in Service, due to stress and strains of Naval Service, the Applicant suffered from disability "Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss of Right ICD H 90.5%" was placed in permanent low medical category. At the time of discharge, the duly constituted Release Medical Board assessed his Disability @ 5% for life and opined it as Aggravated by Naval Service. The Disability Pension claim of the Applicant was rejected on the grounds that his disability was assessed below 20% for life, hence, he was not eligible for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension in terms of Rule 100 of Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964. 1^st Appeal dt 05.01.2022 filed by the Applicant against rejection of Disability Pension claim has not been decided by the Competent Authority. The Applicant has placed reliance on Hon'ble Supreme Court judgments in the case of *Dharamvir Singh Vs UOI & Ors, (2013) 7 SCC 316* and *Sukhvinder Singh Vs UOI & Ors, (2014) STPL 468 SC* and submitted that he is eligible for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension duly rounded off to 50% from the date of his discharge from Service. The Applicant issued Legal Notice dt 02.05.2022 to the Respondents for grant of Disability Pension along with Rounding Off benefits but to no avail. Therefore, the aggrieved Applicant has filed the 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 disability of the Applicant was assessed @5% for life, therefore, he is not eligible for grant of Disability Pension in terms of Rule 105-B of Navy Pension Regulations, 1964. Further, so-called 1^st Appeal dt 05.01.2022 preferred by the Applicant has not been received by the Respondents.

4. During the course of arguments on 06.03.2025, Learned Counsel for the Applicant placed reliance on AFT (RB), Lucknow Order passed in OA No 250/2023 in the case of *Ex Hav Ajeet Kumar Singh Vs UOI & Ors* and submitted that the Disability of the Applicant cannot be assessed less than 20%. Today, during the course of arguments, Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that clarification on Guide to Medical Officers, 2008 has been issued by DGAFMS, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi vide their letter dt 14.06.2019 and the disability can be assessed below 20%. In support of his contention, Learned Counsel for the Respondents placed on record AFT (PB), New Delhi Order dt 19.05.2023 in OA No 927/2022 in the case of *Ex Hav Ashok Kumar Vs UOI & Ors* and submitted that the Disability of the Applicant can be assessed below 20% and the plea of the Applicant was rejected and the OA was dismissed. Therefore, the OA is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

5. We have heard Learned Counsels for the parties and perused the material placed before us.

6. It is not in dispute that the disability of the Applicant was discharged from Service on completion of terms of engagement and not invalidated out on medical grounds. The duly constituted Release Medical Board assessed his disability @ 5% for life and considered as Aggravated by Naval Service. Therefore, the Applicant has not been granted Disability Pension in terms of Rule 105B of Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964, his disability being below 20%.

7. Taking note of overall facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to ascertain the present degree of disability "Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss Right ICD H 90.5", in terms of Guide to Medical Officers, 2008 and the provisions of DGAFMS letter No 16036/RMB/DGAFMS/MA (Pens)/02 dt 14.06.2019. Therefore, we are of the view that the applicant be referred to a Re-assessment Medical Board (RAMB) to assess the present medical condition and degree of disability of the Applicant. The Respondents are directed to constitute a onetime RAMB for the said Disability "Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss Right ICD H 90.5" at the designated Military Hospital for the examination of the Applicant and assess degree of disability within a period of six 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. After assessment of the Applicant for the aforesaid disease, the Respondents shall consider the case of the Applicant for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension for this Disability or otherwise as per the extant rules/policies in this regard within a period of four months. If the Applicant is found eligible for grant of Disability Element after the RAMB, the Disability Element may be granted to him wef the date of holding of RAMB.

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

9. No order on costs.

(SANJIV MITTAL) MEMBER (A)

Ssy/-

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (J)