Ex Sep Jagmal Ram vs UOI & Others on 24 July 2025

**ORDER

24.07.2025**

1. 1. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has filed this OA praying for directing the Respondents to grant War Injury Pension to the applicant wef 23/11/1965 to be revised from time to time alongwith benefits of broadbanding wef 01/1/1996 for life as per rules and regulations as also Orders by various Courts of Law and Circulars issued by the Central Govt from time to time.

2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the applicant are that the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 02/11/1963 in SHAPE-1 and was invalidated out from service by a medical board held on 23/11/1965 under Rule 13 (3) Item III (iii) of Army Rules 1954. He had rendered two years and 20 days of service, Annexure A/2. His parent Unit, 11 MAHAR Regiment, was moved to Indo Pak Border to take part in the Indo Pak War, 1965. The applicant participated in the war and soon after the declaration of ceasefire, his unit was ordered to move back to the Peace Station, Saugor, Madhya Pradesh. The troops were ordered to move to the new location in a special military train alongwith arms, ammunitions and all other paraphernalia. The applicant alongwith other personnel of the unit while loading the luggage onto the train, the door of the coach of the goods train suddenly closed which resulted in the crushing of the Index Finger of the applicant. He was immediately taken to the MI-Room and was administered first aid and on reaching the permanent location, the applicant was admitted to the Military Hospital. During treatment, Index Finger of the right hand of the applicant was amputated and thereby he was invalidated out from service without any disability pension. However, due to some procedural lapse, PCDA (P) had rejected the War Injury Pension to the applicant. Despite the best efforts of the applicant, including a petition to the Honourable Prime Minister for grant of relief was of no avail. In support of his arguments, the applicant has placed reliance on the Order dated 05/2/2019 passed by the Chandigarh Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal in OA No 3389/2017 in the case of Prem Chand Vs UOI & Ors, amongst others. Having been aggrieved, the applicant has filed the OA, praying for relief.

3. The Respondents have filed a Reply Statement and have submitted that the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 02/11/1963 and was invalidated out from service on 22/11/1965 under Rule 13 (3) Item III (i) /sic (iii) after rendering two years and 21 days of service. Being a non pensioner, service records of the applicant have been destroyed after completion of its mandatory retention period of 25 years under the provisions of Para 595 of Regulations for the Army 1987 (Revised Edition), Annexure R/1. After a lapse of 57 years from the date of his invalidment from the Army, the applicant had served a legal notice dated 17/4/2002 for grant of war injury pension, which was suitably replied to by the Record Office. Since the service documents of the applicant have been destroyed, it is not feasible to establish fact of his claim at this belated stage. Respondents have also submitted that the instant OA is barred by limitation and since service/medical documents of the applicant have already been destroyed, the attributability factor as well as percentage of disability cannot be verified at this much belated stage. In support of their arguments, the Respondents have placed on record, amongst others, a copy of the Order dated 24/3/2015 passed by the Chandigarh Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal in OA No 441 of 2014 in the case of Ex Sep Bachan Singh Vs UOI & Ors, wherein the service documents of the applicant were destroyed and the applicant had claimed disability pension. The said OA was dismissed by the Tribunal, holding the view that, "this court held that where the service record of the petitioner is not available and no steps were taken for a period extending over 25 years, no relief for pension could be granted to the petitioner, merely as a charity or bounty in the absence of relevant facts being determinable and relevant documents available".

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

5. It is evident that being a non pensioner, service documents of the applicant have been destroyed after retention of its mandatory period. However, details furnished in Long Roll placed on record by the Respondents reveal that the applicant was invalided out from service 22/11/1965 under Rule 13 (3) Item III (iii) of Army Rules 1954. He had rendered two years and 21 days of service.

Counsel for the applicant has not placed on record any credible document to prove that the applicant had indeed participated in the Indo Pak War 1965 and sustained injury while loading arms and ammunitions and stores while returning to the new location of the Unit on culmination of the War. As per copy of the Extract of the Long Roll placed on record by the Respondents (Annexure R/1), disability pension claim of the applicant was rejected by PCDA (P) vide their letter dated 20/6/1966. No other details are mentioned in the Long Roll. Since the OA was filed after a delay of more than five decades and in the absence of any credible documents to prove the contention of the applicant having been placed on record, the onus of proof solely rest on the applicant to prove his point of the injury purported to have been sustained by him.

6. With regard to onus of proof where the claim is more than 15 years of discharge, Para 7 of Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards to Armed Forces Personnel - 2008, reads as follows :- "Onus of Proof:

7. Ordinarily the claimant will not be called to prove the condition of entitlement. However, where the claim is preferred after 15 years of discharge/retirement/invalidment/release, by which time the service documents of the claimant are destroyed after the prescribed retention period, the onus to prove the entitlement would lie on the claimant".

7. In view of the foregoing and in the absence of any credible/cogent document to establish the contention of the applicant that he had indeed sustained injury while loading the luggage into the special train after the Indo Pak War, 1965, on their way back, we find no merit in the claim of the applicant for grant of War Injury/Disability Pension to him and the OA merits dismissal.

8. Apart from the above, we also find that the Application stands barred by inordinate delay and laches of more than five decades with no cogent reason for the inexplicable delay and it does not deserve to be entertained on this count too. In view of the above and in the light of the principles laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of C. Jacob Vs. Director of Geology and Mining & Anr., reported in (2008) 10 SCC 115, wherein it was held that a stale claim cannot be revived. The case is also squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UOI Vs Rajwanti, in Civil Appeal No 583-584 of 2017, decided on 16/1/2017.

सत्यमेव जयते

9. In-fine we find that this Application is bereft of strength on all counts and is clearly not sustainable and merits Dismissal.

10. The OA is dismissed accordingly. No order on costs.

11. MA No 940/2023 for condonation of delay in filing the OA also stands disposed off.


(SANJIV MITTAL) MEMBER (A)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (J)


cda/-