Ex Hav Kishana Ram vs UOI & Others on 25 November 2025

O R D E R

25.11.2025 MA No 917/2023

1. The applicant has filed this MA praying for condonation of delay of more than 18 years in filing the OA. The plea of the applicant for condonation of delay would be heard alongwith the OA.

OA Mo 497/2023

2. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has filed this OA praying for quashing and setting aside the Impugned letters dated 23/1/2023 and 30/6/2023 and that the Respondents be directed to grant Disability Pension to the applicant wef the date of his discharge from service, ie,

30/6/2004 with 18% interest. He has also prayed for payment of costs as may be deemed fit, he being a poor applicant.

3. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the applicant are that the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 01/7/1980 and was discharged from service on 30/6/2004 under Rule 13 (3) item III (i) of Army Rules 1954 on fulfilling his terms of engagement. The RMB assessed the disabilities of the applicant, “Spondylo Disthesis LV-4, LV5 (M-51) as attributable to military service and (ii) Hyper Metropic with Amblyopia Both Eyes” @40% for life and considered it as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. Although the applicant was entitled to get disabililty pension as he sustained injury during his duty in field area, he was not granted the benefit of disability element. In support of his arguments, the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ex Sapper Mohinder Singh Vs UOI, Civil Appeal No 164 of 1991, holding the view that the pension authority cannot over ride the recommendations of the medical board in disability pension matters.

4. During the course of final hearing held on 25/11/2025, Counsel for the applicant has placed on record the Judgment dated 25/2/2022 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UOI & Ors Vs No 14479896 Ex Naik Yogender Pal Singh, Civil Appeal No 2022 (Diary No 28938/2021). He has also placed on record a copy of Addl Dte General Personnel Services, AG’s Branch, IHQ of MoD (Army) letter dated 25/4/2011, highlighting the need of reducing the court cases by withdrawing from contesting in Court Cases where finding of IMB/RMB have been altered by the MA (P) in PCDA (P).

5. The Respondents have filed a detailed Reply Statement and submitted that the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 01/7/1980 and was discharged from service on 30/6/2004 under Rule 13 (3) Item III (i) of Army Rules 1954 on completion of his service/age limit. He had rendered 24 years of service and was granted service pension for life. As per Injury Reporft dated 22/7/2003, the applicant sustained injury, “(i) Spondylolistesis LV-4, LV-5 (M-51)” on 20/4/2000, and considered it as atttrbutable to military service, Annexure R/1. The RMB held on 19/6/2004 held at 150 General Hospital, assessed the disabilities of the applicant, “Spondylolistesis LV-4, LV-5 (M-51)” @30% for life and considered it as attributable to military service and (ii) Hyper Metropic with Amblyopia Both Eyes” @15-19% for life and considered it as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service as also not connected with service. However, claim of the applicant for grant of disability element was processed to PCDA (P), but the same was rejected by MA (P), PCDA (P) vide their letter dated 09/12/2004, which was communicated to the applicant vide Record Office letter dated 11/1/2005 with an advice to him to prefer an Appeal, if not satisfied with the decision. Based on the Email of the applicant dated 19/6/2023 for grant of disability element and in response to it, Record Office had directed the applicant to submit certain documents through the concerned Zila Sainik Board, but the applicant paid no heed to the advice of Record Office. Respondents further submit that in terms of IHQ of MoD (Army) letter dated 25/4/2011, alterations in the findings of the medical board by the MA (P) at the PCDA (P) do not stand any legal validity and he is eligible for rounding off benefits of disability element wef 01/1/2016 instead of 30/6/2004.

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

7. Having heard and perused the material placed on record, it is apparent that the applicant was discharged from servie on 30/6/2004 under Rule 13 (3) Item III

(i) of Army Rules 1954 on completion of his service/age limit. He had rendered 24 years of service and was granted service pension for life. The RMB held on

19/6/2004 held at 150 General Hospital, assessed the disabilities of the applicant, “Spondylolisthesis LV-4, LV-5 (M-51)” @30% for life and considered it as attributable to military service as the applicant sustained injury while posted in Field Area which was considered as attributable to military service and (ii) Hyper Metropic with Amblyopia Both Eyes” @15-19% for life with Composite assessment @40% for life and considered it as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service as also not connected with service. However, MA (P) at the PCDA (P) has over ruled the opinion of both the Injury Report and the duly constituted RMB and rejected the claim of the applicant, which is against the spirit of ruling of the Hon’ble Apex in the case of Sapper Mohinder Singh. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the applicant is eligible for grant of disability element of disability pension @30% for the first disability duly rounded off to 50% wef the date of his discharge from service. However, since there has been a long delay of more than 19 years in filing the OA, the arrears need to be restricted to three years prior to the date of filing the OA as ordered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UOIN & Ors Vs Tarsem Singh, 2008 (8) SCC 648. OA has been filed on 20/10/2023.

8. Resultantly, the OA is allowed and the Respondents are directed to grant Disability Element of Disabililty Pension @30% to be rounded off to 50% wef 20/10/2020 for life to the applicant. The arrears shall be paid to the applicant witnin a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, failing which, the applicant shall be entitled to receive interest @6% pa till the date of its actual payment.

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

10. MA No 917/2023 also stands disposed off.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

cda/-