O.A. No. 99 of 2014. Case: Anil Kumar T. Vs Union of India. Armed Forces Tribunal

Case Number:O.A. No. 99 of 2014
Party Name:Anil Kumar T. Vs Union of India
Counsel:For Appellant: V.K. Sathyanathan, Adv. and For Respondents: Tojan J. Vathikulam, Central Govt. Counsel
Judges:Shrikant Tripathi, J. (Member (J)) and M.P. Muralidharan, Member (A)
Issue:Defence
Judgement Date:December 01, 2014
Court:Armed Forces Tribunal
 
FREE EXCERPT

Order:

Shrikant Tripathi, J. (Member (J)), (Regional Bench At Kochi)

  1. Reply statement filed on behalf of the respondents is taken on record after condoning the delay. M.A. No. 599 of 2014 is accordingly disposed of.

  2. Heard Mr. V.K. Sathyanathan for the applicant and Mr. Tojan J. Vathikulam for the respondents and perused the record.

  3. The applicant, Ex Naik Anil Kumar T., No. 2587170 M has filed this O.A. for disability pension with the benefit of rounding off of the same as per the Government of India, Ministry of Defence letter No. 1(2)/97/D (pen-C) dated 31st January 2001. The applicant was enrolled in the Madras Regiment on 1st November 1983 and was discharged from the service under Army Rule 13(3) III (iv) at his own request with effect from 1st October 2001 before fulfilling the conditions of terms of engagement. A Release Medical Board was convened to find out the medical status of the applicant which diagonised that he had the disability "LOW BACK ACHE WITH SCIATICA (LT)" to the extent of 30% for life. The Medical Board further opined that the disability had aggravated due to the military service. The applicant was admittedly sanctioned service pension, which he is continuously drawing. But he was denied the disability pension on the ground that he was not invalided out of service and was discharged at his own request on compassionate ground.

  4. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant ought to have been treated as invalided out of service only on the ground that he had lower medical category than the medical category he possessed at the time of his recruitment. So denial of disability pension to the applicant was not proper. He further contended that the benefit of rounding off of the disability pension was also available to the applicant. In support of his submissions, Mr. V.K. Sathyanathan relied on Mahavir Singh Narwal v. Union of India [2004 (74) DRJ 661]. He further relied upon the Division Bench decision of the Kerala High Court rendered recently in Writ Appeal No. 375 of 2010 vide the order dated 17.07.2014.

  5. Learned counsel for the respondents tried to rely upon the decision of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Chief of Air Staff v. Augustine, 2010 (2) KLT 514, and contended that the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court had found that the decision rendered by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Mahavir Singh Narwal v. Union of India and Others (2004) 74 DRJ 661, did not hold a good law. In Augustine's case, the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court had considered two matters, one W.A. No. 774 of 2009, which related to an individual who had requested for discharge on educational grounds. The...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL