Ex WO Hemraj Rathore vs UOI & Others on 20 November 2025

ORDER

20.11.2025 Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, MEMBER(U) 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 that the Impugned Order dated 18/10/2022, Annexure A/1, by which the Respondents have rejected the disability element claim of the applicant be quashed and set aside and that the applicant be granted disability pension on the ground of Interstitial Lung Disease, Hypertension, Diabetes Mellitus and Dyslipidemia @52.12% with round off benefit to 75%, alongwith 18% pa interest on the arrears.

2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the applicant are that the applicant was enrolled in the Air Force on 06/4/1984 and was discharged from service on 30/4/2022. The disability pension claim of the applicant was rejected vide aforesaid letter, Annexure A/1.

3. Vide Reply Statement, the Respondents have submitted that the applicant was discharged from service on 30/4/2022 under the Clause, "On attaining the age of superannuation" after rendering 37 years, 11 months and four days of service. He was granted service pension for the qualifying service. The RMB assessed the disabilities of the applicant, "(i) Interstitial Lung Disease, @10%, (i) Primary Hypertension @30%, (i) Type II Diabetes Mellitus" @20% and (iv) Dyslipidemia" @5%o., with composite assessment of all these disabilities at 52.12%, with net assessment qualifying for grant of Disability Pension at NIL for life. While the first disability has been considered as aggravated by service, all other disabilities are considered as neither attritbutable to not aggravated by military service. The applicant was not granted disability element of disability pension in terms of Para 153 of Pension Regqulations for the Air Force, 1961, Pat I. Respondents further submit that the applicant had a personal history of were due to his smoking and the root cause of the ailment of the applicant The First smoking, lack of exercise, sedentary lifestyle and dietary indiscretion. Appeal dated 30/1/2023 submitted by the applicant against rejection of his disability element claim was rejected vide letter dated 15/12/2023.

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

5. The perusal of record reveals that his disability at Serial No (i) as noted above was aggravated due to Air Force service factors. However, since it was assessed @ less than 20% (10%), and the applicant had superannuated from service, he is not entitled to disability element in terms of Hon'ble Apex Court Judgment in the case of Bachchan Prasad Vs UOI & Ors, Civil Appeal No 2259 of 2012, decided on 04/9/2019, the relevant extract is reproduced below : therefore, it cannot be said that his health problem is not attributable to Air Force service. However, we cannot find fault with the opinion of the Medical Board that the disability is less than 20%. The applicant is not entitled for disability element, as his disability is less than 20%. We do Tne case of the applicant is also covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Ourt in the case of UOI & Ors Vs Wing Commander SPS Rathore, Civl Appeal No 10870/2018, decided on 11/12/2019. 1OT see any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The Appeal is accordingly, dismissed".

6. During the course of hearing, Counsel for the applicant submits that he may be permitted to prefer the Second Appeal against rejection of his disability pension claim by the Respondents vide their letters dated 18/10/2022 and 15/12/2023.

8.

7. Taking note of overall facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the plea of the counsel for the applicant to file Second Appeal against rejection of his disability element claim in accordance with prevailing rules and policies. Accordingly, the applicant may prefer Second Appeal within a period of one We expect the month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Competent Authority to take a decision in this matter in accordance with extant rules and regulations on the subject within a period of four months from the date of receipt of such an Appeal from the Applicant. The applicant shall be informed accordingly.

9. Cda/ The OA is disposed off accordingly. No order on costs. (SANJIV MITTAL) MEMBER (A) Pending application, if any, also stands disposed off. (GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (J)