Rajasthan High Court
CW/20653/2025 of UNION OF INDIA Vs NO. 2873809K EX NK (TS) RAMAOTAR SINGH S/O SH. ANNA SINGH on 10 July 2026
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20653/2025 URN: CW / 45731U / 2025 1. Union Of India, Through Its Defence Secretary, Ministry Of Defence, New Delhi. 2. The Principal Controller Of Defence Accounts (Pension), Allahabad (Up) 3. The Oic (Records), Records The
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20653/2025
URN: CW / 45731U / 2025
1.
Union Of India, Through Its Defence Secretary, Ministry Of Defence, New Delhi.
2.
The Principal Controller Of Defence Accounts (Pension), Allahabad (Up)
3.
The Oic (Records), Records The Rajputana Rifles, Delhi Cantt- 110010
----Petitioners
Versus
No. 2873809K Ex Nk (Ts) Ramaotar Singh S/o Sh. Anna Singh, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Village And Post- Rajnota, Dhani Binda Ji Ki, Tehsil- Kotputali, District- Jaipur (Rajasthan)
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. V.P. Mathur
For Respondent(s)
:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Judgment
10/07/2026
1. By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 31.05.2022 (Annexure-3) passed by Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred as the “Tribunal”) whereby the original application of the respondent was allowed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the respondent No. 1 has filed the original application before the Tribunal after 22 years claiming Disability Element of Disability Pension. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent has
(2 of 3) [CW-20653/2025] not explained justifiable reason with regard to the delay in filing the original application and the learned Tribunal has wrongly allowed the application of the respondent.
3. It is further argued by the leaned counsel for the petitioners that a review petition was also filed in which the disability arising out of service was not found and consequently, the review petition also dismissed by the Tribunal.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.
5. The learned Tribunal has allowed the Original Application relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. V. Tarsem Singh reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648 and the learned Tribunal while allowing the application has observed as under:- “9. It is apparent from the foregoing that the Applicant was Discharged from Army Service on 31.03.1996 after having rendered 17 years of service than his mandated service in the rank of Naik. The RMB assessed the disability of the Applicant @ 60% for two years, opined as Attributable to Military Service as the infection was contracted while in service. No RAMB was held thereafter. The Applicant is clearly eligible for grant of Disability Element with Rounding Off benefit for life from the date of his Discharge, in view of the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court cited above. However, since the OA has been filed after a hiatus of more than 22 years, the arrears need to be restricted to three years prior to the date of filing of the OA in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tarsem Singh, reported in 2008(8) SCC 648. This OA has been filed on 12/02/2019.
10. In fin e, the Respondents are directed to pay the arrears of Disability Element of Disability Pension @60% duly rounded off to 75% wef 12/02/2016 for life to the Applicant within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. In default thereof, the arrears shall carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum till the date of actual payment.”
6. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Tribunal. So far as the delay is concerned, the
(3 of 3) [CW-20653/2025] learned Tribunal has restricted the claim of the petitioner three years prior to the date of filing of the original application. Therefore, in our considered opinion, no case is made out for interference by this Court.
7. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J 23/SHAILENDRA