Ex Nk (TS) Usman Khan vs UOI & Others on 28 August 2025

1. 1. UOI, through the Secretary to the Govt of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi – 110 011

2. 2. Chief of the Army Staff, Army HQ, DHQ PO, New Delhi – 110 011

3. 3. PCDA (P), Draupadi Ghat, Prayagraj, UP – 211 014

4. 4. AAD Records, PIN 908 803 c/o 99 APO

.... Respondents

For Applicant

: Mr DS Rathore, Advocate

For Respondents

: Mr Tribhuwan Singh, Advocate

**CORAM:**

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

**HON'BLE MR. SANJIV MITTAL, MEMBER (A)**


1. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has filed this OA praying for directing the Respondents to sanction disability element of disability pension @40% to the applicant wef 01/7/1986 alongwith its rounding off benefits to 50% wef 01/1/1996 for life.

2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the applicant are that the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 15/9/1973 in medical category AYE and was discharged from service on 30/6/1986 under Rule 13 (3) Item III (v) of Army Rules 1954 being placed in low medical category CEE (P). Hence, as per Rule 173A of 

to have been invalidated out from service for the purpose of benefits under the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982. The applicant was granted service element of his disability pension for life wef 01/7/1986. The RMB assessed the disability of the applicant, "Mobile Kidney Rt" and "Renal Calculus Rt" @20% for two years and considered the first disability as neither attributable to nor aggravated by service and second disability as attributable to military service which was also assessed @20% for two years. The composite disability of the applicant was assessed @40%. Therefore, the applicant submits that he is eligible for grant of disability element of disability pension @40% wef 01/7/1986 alongwith its rounding off benefits wef 01/1/1996. However, he was not granted the benefit despite serving a legal notice to the Respondents vide his letter dated 17/4/2023. In this regard, the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Dharamvir Singh Vs UOI & Ors (2013) 7316. Having been aggrieved, the applicant has filed this OA praying for relief.

3. Vide Reply Statement filed by the Respondents to the OA, the Respondents have stated that the applicant was enrolled in the Territorial Army on 12/4/1969 and was discharged from there after rendering 3 years and 41 days of service. Thereafter, the Applicant re-enrolled in the regular Army on 15/9/1973. The applicant was placed in low medical category for the disability, "Urticaria" wef 27/6/1983. Based on periodical review from time to time, the applicant was further diagnosed as a case of "Mobile Kidney (Rt) and Urinary Tract Infection" for a period of two years wef 19/8/1985. As per extant policy and since the applicant was unwilling to continue in service in alternative appointment and his retention in service was not recommended by the commanding officer of the Unit in public interest, the applicant was discharged from service wef 30/6/1986. The RMB assessed the disabilities of the applicant, "Mobile Kidney (Rt)" and (ii) "Renal Calculus (Rt)" @20% each and considered the first disability as neither attributable to nor aggravated by service and the second disability as attributable to service. Both the disabilities have been assessed @ composite 40% for two years. While the applicant was granted service element of his disability pension for life, disability element was rejected considering both the disabilities at less than 20%, ie, NIL percentage by the PCDA (P)/MA (P)-vide their letter dated 25/10/1986. Further RSMB held at MH Jodhpur on 24/4/1996 assessed both these disabilities @Zero percentage and Permanent wef 24/4/1993.

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

सत्यमेव जयते

5. It is evident from the record that the applicant had a combined service of Territorial and the regular Army for more than 15 years, when he was discharged from Air Defence Regiment on 30/6/1986. Since the applicant was in low medical category at the time of his discharge from service, the duly constituted RMB assessed the disabilities of the applicant, "Mobile Kidney" and (ii) "Renal Calculus (Rt)" @20% each for two years and considered the first disability as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service and the second one as attributable to military service. Both these disabilities were assessed at composite 40% for two years. While the applicant was granted service pension for life which was revised time to time based on extant policy, he was not granted disability element of pension as the PCDA (P)-Prayagraj, re-assessed both the disabilities of the applicant at less than 20%. Further RSMB held at MH Jodhpur on 24/4/1996 assessed both the disabilities @ Zero Percent and Permanent wef 24/4/1993. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the action of the PCDA (P) in rejecting the disability element of disability pension of the applicant for the second disability which had been assessed @20% and was considered as attributable to military service was not in consonance with the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard. The applicant is eligible for grant of disability element of 

disability pension for two years as assessed by the duly constituted medical board for his second disability which was considered as attributable to military service. Since RSMB held subsequently on 24/4/1996 assessed both the disabilities of the applicant at zero percentage and Permanent, prayer of the applicant for grant of disability element wef 01/7/1986 alongwith rounding off benefits wef 01/1996 for life has no merit and is rejected.

6. In fine, the OA is partly allowed and the Respondents are directed to grant disability element of disability pension @20% for the applicant for two years wef the date of his discharge, ie, 01/7/1986. The arrears shall be paid to the applicant within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, failing which, interest @6% shall accrue on the whole amount till its actual date of payment.

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/-