O.A. No. 26 of 2014. Case: Aneesh Raj S. Vs Union of India. Armed Forces Tribunal
| Case Number | O.A. No. 26 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: T.R. Jagadeesh, Adv. and For Respondents: E.V. Moly, Adv., Central Govt. Counsel |
| Judges | Shrikant Tripathi, J. (Member (J)) and Vice Admiral M.P. Muralidharan, AVSM & BAR, NM, Member (A) |
| Issue | Defence |
| Judgement Date | June 12, 2014 |
| Court | Armed Forces Tribunal |
Order:
Shrikant Tripathi, J. (Member (J)), (Regional Bench, Kochi)
-
Delay in filing the reply statement is condoned and the reply statement is taken on record. M.A. No. 261 of 2014 is accordingly disposed of.
-
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
-
The applicant, Annesh Raj S, Ex Sepoy No. 2608421 F, claims disability pension with effect from the date of his discharge from the Army service. He was enrolled in the Army on 26th November 2001 and was discharged on 25th October 2008 under Army Rule 13(3)(iii)(v), as his services were no longer required. At the time of the discharge, he was examined by the Release Medical Board which placed him in medical category SHAPE-1, though prior thereto he had been complaining Psychosis problem. In view of the fact that he had not rendered qualifying service of 15 years and had also not sustained any disability whatsoever during the service, his request for grant of service pension or disability pension was not found acceptable.
-
After the discharge from the Army service, the applicant moved a petition for financial assistance which was not accepted. After about 02 years of the discharge, he got himself examined by the District Medical Board (Civil Medical Authority) on 26th October 2010 which opined that he was suffering from the disability "Chronic Psychotic illness" to the extent of more than 50%. The opinion of the District Medical Board, Thiruvananthapuram has been filed as Annexure A4. Mr. T.R. Jagadeesh appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant had the problem of psychosis even prior to his discharge from the Army service and he was treated for the same, but in view of the fact that the Release Medical Board placed him in medical category SHAPE-1, the request for the disability pension was turned down. He next contended that when the District Medical Board, Thiruvananthapuram, examined the applicant on 25th October 2010, it found him suffering from "Chronic Psychotic illness" and assessed the same to the extent of more than 50%, so as per the provisions of Regulation 178 of the Pension...
To continue reading
Request your trial