Armed Forces Tribunal
Ex Sub Dipendra Sahu vs UOI & Others on 24 July 2025
**ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, JAIPUR**
**CIRCUIT BENCH, JODHPUR**
5.
**OA 282/2023 with MA 441/2023**
**JC-733710K Ex Sub Dipendra Sahu, S/o Late Shri Ladhu Sahu, Resident of village and Post Sakrouli, Tehsil Sisal, District Gumla, Jharkhand, now residing at House No 74, Puneet Nagar, Behind Nyapura Hospital, Post BSF Mandore Road, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan – 342 026**
.... Applicant
Versus
1. 1. UOI, through the Secretary, Govt of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi – 110 011
2. 2. Chief of the Army Staff, COAS Sectt, South Block, IHQ of MoD (Army), New Delhi – 110 011
3. 3. The Chairman, Second Appellate Committee on Pension (SACP), through the Record Office, AOC Records, PIN 900 453, c/o 56 APO
4. 4. The Chairman, Appellate Committee on First Appeal, through the Record office, AOC Records, PIN 900 453, c/o 56 APO
5. 5. Chief Record Officer, AOC Records, PIN 900 453, c/o 56 APO
.... Respondents
For Applicant
For Respondents
: Mr ML Deora, Advocate
: Mr Samir Shrimali, Advocate
**CORAM:**
**HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, MEMBER (J)**
**HON'BLE MR. SANJIV MITTAL, MEMBER (A)**
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
**O R D E R**
**24.07.2025**
1. 1. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, the Applicant has filed this OA praying for quashing and setting aside the all the Orders whereby the disability element of disability pension claim of the applicant has been rejected by the Respondents and that he be granted disability pension as against by treating his disability as 20% as against @15% assessed by the RMB alongwith rounding off benefits to 50% for life wef the date of his retirement.
2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the applicant are that the applicant was enrolled in the Army in sound health and physical fitness which was duly examined by the enrolling medical officer. While in service, due to stress and strain of service, the applicant suffered from the disability, "Sensorineural Hearing Loss Bilateral" and was downgraded to low medical category which was considered as aggravated by service. At the time of his premature discharge from service on compassionate grounds, the RMB wrongly assessed the disability of the applicant @15% contrary to what was assessed earlier @20%. Since the disability of the applicant was assessed @less than 20%, he was not granted disability element of disability pension. Appeals made by the applicant against rejection of his claim were of no avail. Having been aggrieved, the applicant has filed the OA praying for relief.
3. Respondents have filed a Reply Statement and have submitted that the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 27/12/1997. While serving in 3 Infantry Division Ordnance Unit, the applicant was downgraded to low medical category due to the disability, "Moderate Sensorineural Hearing Loss Both Ears", wef 24/10/2018. Due to domestic reasons, the applicant applied for premature discharge from service on compassionate grounds at his own request vide his personal application dated 21/8/2020. He was, thus, discharged from service wef 31/3/2021 and was granted service pension for life. The RMB held at Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt, on 15/1/2021, assessed the disability of the applicant, "Moderate Sensorineural Hearing Loss Both Ears", @15% for life. While he was granted pension for life, he was not granted disability element of disability pension. First and Second appeals submitted by the applicant against rejection of his claim were also rejected by the competent authority and the decision was also duly communicated to the applicant. Respondents further submitted that in terms of Para 53 (a) of Pension Regulations for the Army 2008, Part I, the applicant is not eligible for grant of disability element of pension as his disability was assessed @ less than 20%. In support of their arguments, the Respondents have placed reliance on the judgment dated 11/12/2019 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UOI & Ors Vs Wing Commander SP Rathore.
4. We have heard the counsels for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
5. Perusal of record reveals that the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 27/12/1997. Vide personal application dated 21/8/2020, the applicant has requested for his premature discharge from service on personal compassionate grounds and not on account of his disability. It has also been certified by him in his application that he was aware of the existing rules and would not be entitled to disability element of disability pension and will not claim the same after his discharge from service, as requested and was also unwilling for further promotion, even if he came in seniority after approval of the discharge. Accordingly, discharge order of the applicant was issued by Record Office vide letter dated 06/10/2020, Annexure R/4 and he was discharged from service wef 31/3/2021 at his own request. He had rendered 23 years, three months and five days of service for which he was granted service pension for life. The RMB assessed the disability of the applicant, "Moderate Sensorineural Hearing Loss Bilateral" @ Composite 15% for life and considered it as aggravated by military service. It has also been opined by the RMB that the onset of ID was in Oct 2018 while he was serving in 3 Infantry Division DOU, Leh, Jammu and Kashmir, a Field/HAA Area. ID is conceded as aggravated by military service as per Para 23 of chapter VI of GMO's Military Pension 2008 and Office of the DG AFMS, Ministry of Defence, letter No 16036/RMB/IMB/DG AFMS/MA (Pens)/02 dated 14/6/2019. However, copy of Categorisation medical board proceedings dated 11/4/2019 of the applicant, placed on record by the Respondents at annexure 
R/2, Page No 89, as part of their Reply Statement, the same disability of the applicant has been assessed@20%. During the course of hearing, counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the disability of the applicant cannot be at less than 20%. Counsel for the Respondents has also placed on record a copy of the letter dated 14/6/2019 issued by the Office of DG AFMS, Ministry of Defence, 'M' Block, New Delhi – 110 001, regarding template for detailed justification for board's recommendations on the entitlement/assessment in sensory neural hearing loss cases during conduct of RMB/IMB.
6. It is clear that the applicant's disability having been assessed at less than 20% by the RMB, he is not entitled to the disability element of disability pension. However, in view of contradictory opinion of the Categorisation Medical Board and the RMB as regards the assessment of disability of the applicant, we deem it appropriate to remand the case back to the Competent Authority to consider the case of the applicant afresh. We expect the Respondents to take a final decision in this regard within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, in terms of extant rules and regulations especially the fact that grant of disability element depends upon the opinion of the RMB. The outcome thereof shall be intimated to the applicant accordingly.
7. The OA is disposed off accordingly. No order on costs.
8. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed off.
(SANJIV MITTAL) MEMBER (A) cda/-
(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (J)