Armed Forces Tribunal

IB Singh vs Union of India on 22 October 2026

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH CHANDIGARH

AT CHANDIMANDIR

-.-

OA 1449 of 2022

Thursday, the 22nd day of Oct, 2026

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SUDHIR MITTAL, MEMBER (J)

HON'BLE LT GEN (DR) RANBIR SINGH, MEMBER (A)

Lt Col IB Singh (Retd)

…… Applicant

(By Brig PS Ghuman (Retd), Advocate)

Versus

Union of India and others

…… Respondents

(By Satinder Singh, Sr PC)

-.-

ORDER

JUSTICE SUDHIR MITTAL, MEMBER (J),

The applicant sought premature release from the Army. The request was accepted and he was released w.e.f. 17.04.2008. He was in a Permanent Low Medical Category on account of disability of ‘Primary Hypertension’, the extent of which was assessed to be 30% for life and aggravated by military service. No claim for grant of disability element was made because the applicant had voluntarily sought release and as per the policy in vogue, such personnel were not entitled to grant of disability benefits.

2. After implementation of Policy letter dated 19.05.2017, the applicant sought the benefit of disability element vide representation dated 17.09.2021 (erroneously marked as a first appeal). No response to the same was received.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that as per Policy letter dated 19.05.2017, the applicant is entitled to grant of disability element for the disability of ‘Primary Hypertension’ @ 30% rounded off to 50% w.e.f. 01.01.2006. Thus, the respondents were not justified in not responding to the representation.

Page 1 of 2

OA 1449 of 2022, Lt Col IB Singh (Retd) Vs UOI & Ors. -2-

4. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the representation dated 17.09.2021 was made belatedly, thus, the applicant did not deserve any relief.

5. Policy regarding grant of disability benefits to even those who had sought voluntary discharge, was implemented in the year 2017. Some time is required for information of such policies to be disseminated to the general public. Thus, a representation made in the year 2021 cannot be said to be belated. The objection is, thus, rejected.

6. Perusal of Policy dated 19.05.2017 makes it abundantly clear that even those who are discharged at his own request were entitled to grant of disability benefits w.e.f. 01.01.2006.

7. Thus, the Original Application is allowed. The applicant is held entitled to grant of benefit of disability element w.e.f 18.04.2008 @ 30% rounded off to 50% for life. Corrigendum PPO be issued within 03 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order by learned counsel for the respondents/OIC Legal Cell. Arrears be also paid within the same period, failing which they shall become payable with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

(Lt Gen (Dr) Ranbir Singh)

(Justice Sudhir Mittal) Member (A)

Member (J)

22nd Oct, 2026 AKB

REPORTABLE OR NOT

Page 2 of 2

Loading citations and judicial treatment…

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead