OA 863 of 2015. Case: Ajay Pal Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.. Armed Forces Tribunal
| Case Number | OA 863 of 2015 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Navdeep Singh, Advocate and For Respondents: V.K. Chaudhary, Sr. PC |
| Judges | Surinder Singh Thakur, J. (Member (J)) and Lt. Gen. Sanjiv Chachra, Member (Ad.) |
| Issue | Defence |
| Judgement Date | May 05, 2016 |
| Court | Armed Forces Tribunal |
Order:
(Chandigarh Regional Bench At Chandimandir)
-
By means of this petition, setting aside of offending part of Medical Board proceedings (Annexure A/7) and consequent rejection of disability pension (Annexure A/9) that disability in question was opined and held to be 'not attributable and not aggravated by military service', without recording any reason is wrong and illegal thus sought the relief of granting the disability pension, as per the Apex Court judgments Annexures A/1 to A/5.
-
Upon a notice to the respondents, while raising a strong objection, resorted and contested the claim of the petitioner and prayed for the dismissal while maintaining their stand that ID in question has no causal connection with the military service and the assessment made by the Release Medical Board is final and cannot be questioned.
-
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the respective contentions and examined the legal position.
-
The foundational facts relevant to the case can be stated thus. The petitioner bearing Army No. 10495447L Ex. Sep Ajay Pal Singh was enrolled in the Territorial Army(150 Bn TA (Punjab) on 01 Feb 2002 and discharged there-from on 15 Feb 2009 under TA Rule 14(b)(iii) of TA Act and 1948 rules (Revised Edition 1976) through Release Medical Board (RMB) in low medical category P3 (Permanent) @ 30% for life on account of "IRRITABLE BOWEL SYNDROME" but it opined that it is neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service and 'NIL' for disability pension. The relevant record of 'AFMSF-16' is annexed as R/1.
-
The case of the petitioner for disability pension was rejected and no appeal was filed within the stipulated time. Earlier he filed an OA No. 2464 of 2012 for similar relief which was dismissed as withdrawn, as such petitioner sent a representation/appeal dated 10 Apr 2013 (Annexure R/3) for consideration after condoning the delay. Vide Annexures R/5 and R/6 the authorities required an undertaking certificate to obtain sanction from the competent authority to condone the limit for submitting the appeal, which according to the respondents was not provided but in turn he filed the present OA, which is objected to on the grounds as already referred above.
-
It is pertinent to note that a Re-Categorisation Medical Board of the petitioner was held on 09 Oct 2007 (Annexure A-11). Part-II of these medical proceedings reveal that during the previous Medical Categorisation the petitioner was in SHAPE-I. The date of origin of this disability is given 08 Aug 2003 at Ambala and significantly against item No. 18 it is opined to be attributable to/aggravated by military service. But part V of RMB proceedings Annexure A/7 held on 30 Oct 2008 is contrary to it which says disability though assessed @ 30%...
To continue reading
Request your trial