Ex Sep Gajanan Swami vs UOI & Others on 6 November 2025

ORDER

06.11.2025 Respondents ORCES TRIBU By way of this Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in the matters of Articles 14, 16,119 &:21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and in the matter of grant of Disability Pension to the Petitioner, the original Applicant, Ex Sepoy Gajanan Swami, had filed SB Civil Writ Petition No 8563/2005 before the Hon'ble High Court of Juicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur, praying for issuing an appropriate writ order or direction directing the Respondents to grant, sanction and pay the disability pension to the petitioner from the date of his discharge from duties, ie, 12/9/1970 with all consequential benefits including interest @18% on the dues/arrears of pension etc. He had also prayed for similar direction/order which this

Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the humble petitioner as also award of cost of the petition to the petitioner.

2. With the inception of Armed Forces Tribunal, Jaipur, Bench, the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur vide Order dated 17/11/2009 transferred the case to this Tribunal for adjudication. The Writ Petition was received at this Bench 07/1/2010 and numbered as TA No 184 of 2009.

3. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the Petitioner (hereinafter called the "Applicant") are that the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 12/6/1963 in the rank of Lance Naik (L/Nk SHT) in the Corps of ASC (Supply) in GroupE. He was discharged from his duties on medical grounds on 12/9/1970 due to his disability, "Psycho Neurosis". For grant of disability pension, the applicant served a communication dated 05/2/1971, but was rejected by the Respondents and instead he was paid the Invalid Gratuity of Rs 1025.50 and later he had also received DCR Gratuity vide letter dated 29/7/1972. Despite best. efforts, the prayer of the applicant for grant of disability pension were of no avail., In support of his arguments, the applicant placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'tble High Court in the case of Nathu Singh Vs UOI and Ors, SB Civil Writ Petition No 5226/1998 in which the learned single judge allowed the writ petition and ordered that the di_charged army man is entitled for disability pension, however, he can avail the same from the date of filing of the writ petition, ie, wef 20/10/1998. Having been aggrieved by the non action of the Respondents, the original applicant had filed the writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court.

The Respondents have filed a detailed reply Statement in response to the writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court and at first submitted that the service documents of the Army No 6359921 Ex Sepoy Gajanan Swami, have been destroyed on expiry of the retention period of 25 years being a non pensioner in terms of Para 595 of Regulations for the Army. However, as per record mentioned at Serial No 529 of Destruction Danister Volume No 37, the applicant was enrolled in the Army on

12/6/1963 and was invalided out from service on 12/9/1970 after having rendered seven years and 93 days of service, Annexure R/1, due to the disability, "Psycho Neurosis". Disability Pension claim of the applicant was rejected on the ground of his disability being considered as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, in terms of Para 173 of Pension Requlations for the Army 1961, Part I, stipulating that unless otherwise specifically provided, a disability pension may be granted to an individual who is invalided out from service on account of a disability which is attributable to or aggravated by military service and is assessed @20% or Over. The question whether a disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service shall be determined under the rules! The Respondents further submitted that the disability pension claim of the applicant was rejected on the ground of it being neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service way back in January 1971, and the applicant remained contented with the terminal benefits paid to him for more than 35 years and he filed the writ petition after an inordinate delay shows his constructive acquiescence th¡t he was satisfied with the terminal benefits paid to him at the time of his discharge from service. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed due to inordinate delay and latches in terms of judgment dated 18/10/2005 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Writ Petition No 20124/2005 in the case of Ex Sep Hema Ram Vs UOI & Ors, dismissing the writ petition on the ground of long delay of 40 years.

5. We have heard the aruments of the Learned Counsel for the Applicant as well as the Respondents and alsO carefully perused the material placed on record.

6. From the perusal of record, it would be prudent to observe that either the counsel for the applicant or thé applicant himself were lackadaisical and/or not serious in pursuing the case, as on a number of occasions in the past, when the matter was taken up for hearing, none appeared. Eventually, with the persistent non-attendance in this matter and left with no option, this Tribunal perforce had to dismiss the TA vide Order dated 02/8/2023 due to non appearance of either the counsel for the applicant or the applicant himsetf on six consecutive occasions in the past for want of prosecution. However, after a lapse of considerable time, a new counsel for the applicant on 30/10/2025, had filed MA No 436/2025 on 30/10/2025 for restoration of TA which was dismissed in default on 02/8/2023 as also the LR application to substitute Smt Savitri Devi, widow of Ex Sep Gajanand Swami, who was reported to have expired on 12/3/2024 during the pendency of the TA.

It is a fact that the Applicant was enrolled in the Army on 12/6/1963 and was discharged from service on 12/9/1970 due to the disability "Psycho Neurosis". The disability of the applicant was considered as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. The Disability Pension claim of the Applicant was rejected on the ground of not fulfilling the conditions stipulated for grant of the same. On the issue of primacy of the Medical Boards, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UOI Vs Ravinder Kumar in Civil Appeal No 1837/2009, decided on 23/5/2012, viewed that : "5, We are of the view that the opinion of the Medical Board which is an expert body must be given due weight value and credence, Person claiming isability pension must establish that the injury suffered by him bears a causal Connection with military service.

6. In the instant case, the Medical Board hasopined as under: Ttanir Seizure. MA "ID. Generalised Connected with service. that ID is genetic in origin, not Thus, in view of the above, it is evident that the ailment with which respondent has been suffering from. is neither aggravated nor attributable to the Army Service".

Further, on a careful scrutiny of the Judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7672 of 2019 (Diary No.27850 of 2017) in the case of Ex Cfn Narsingh Yadav vs Uol wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the decision of AFT, Regional Bench, Lucknow in OA No.235 of 2010 dated 23.09.2011 denying Disability Pension Bench, Lucknow in OA No.235 of 2010 dated 23.09.2011 denying Disability Pension to a soldier medically boarded out with Schizophrenia having less than four years service. The Supreme Court was pleased to view:

10. The Supreme Court Judgment (supra) ampifies that mental disorders which lie outside the realm of being medically detected during the enrolment process cannot be claimed to be attributable to rigours of service at a later stage : "that though the provision of grant of Disability Pension is a beneficiary one, mental disorder at the time of recruitment cannot normally be detected when a person behaves normally. Since there is a possibility of non-deduction of mental disorder, therefore, it cannot be said that Schizophrenia is presumed to be attributed to or aggravated to military service.

12. "Relapsing forms of mental disorders which have intervals of normality and Epilepsy are undetectable diseases while carying out physical examination on enrolment, unless adequate history is given at the time by the member".

11. No facts have been brought to the fore by the Applicant which suggests even a remote causal link of the Disability suffered by him to conditions of Military service. In view of the aforesaid, it is apparent that the Applicant's Disease, "Psycho Neurosis" clearly falls outside the purview of attributability/aggravation to military service thus making the original applicant ineligible for a Disability Pension. Since the original applicant in the TA was not entitled to receive any pensionary benefits due to his discharge from service due to the disability which was considered as Neither Attributable to nor Aggravated by Military Service, his LR is also not entitled to any pensionary benefits.

13. Apart from the above, we also feel that the Application stands barred by inordinate delay and latches with no cogent reason for the inexplicable delay of more than three decades and it does not deserve to be entertained. 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 is held that a stale claim cannot be revived for grant of Pensionary benefits. The case is also COvered by the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of UOI Vs Rajwanti, Civil Appeal No 583-584 of 2017, decided on 16/1/2017.

14. In fine, we are of the considered view that we find no merit in any of the pleas of the Applicant and the TA is accordingly dismissed.

15. No order on Costs.

16. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off. (SANJIV MITTAL) MEMBER (A) cda/ ORCE (GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (J)