O.A. No. 98 of 2010. Case: Babu. T.J. S/o. Joseph, Aged 49, Ex. 624650-Ex Corporal, Thekkotarathil House, Chandanakampara P.O., Kannur District, Kerala 670633 Vs Air Force Record Office, Subroto Park, New Delhi - 10, The Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Defence Secretariat, New Delhi and Union of India, Represented By Its Secretary to Ministry of Defence, Defence Secretariat, New Delhi. Armed Forces Tribunal
| Case Number | O.A. No. 98 of 2010 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Sri. Johnson Manayani, Adv. and For Respondents: Sri. Tojan J. Vathikulam, Sr. Panel Counsel for R1 to R3 |
| Judges | Mr. Shrikant Tripathi, Member (J) and Lt. Gen. Thomas Mathew, PVSM, AVSM, Member (A) |
| Issue | Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007 - Section 14 |
| Judgement Date | October 12, 2012 |
| Court | Armed Forces Tribunal |
Order:
Shrikant Tripathi, Member (J), (Regional Bench, Kochi)
-
Heard Mr. Ramesh. C.R. holding brief for Mr. Johnson Manayani, counsel for the applicant and Mr. Tojan J. Vathikulam, Central Government Counsel, for the respondents and perused the record. By this application under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, the applicant has prayed for disability pension on the ground that entire proceedings for rejecting his claim was illegal and against the settled norms. The applicant joined the Indian Air Force on 8.12.1979 and was discharged therefrom on 8.7.1988 due to Bilateral Retinal Detachment (BE). The contention of the applicant is that disability was attributable to military service, but the respondents wrongly opined that the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by the military service. The respondents on the other hand, have set up the case that the disability was constitutional, therefore, neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. The respondents have further stated that the entire records except the long roll pertaining to the applicant, have already been destroyed after the expiry of the retention period, therefore, it was not possible to place the Medical Board Proceedings and other relevant records for perusal of the Tribunal.
-
Counsel for the applicant submitted that the present matter was liable to be dealt with according to the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 and as such the burden was on the respondent to show that disability was not attributable to the service. Counsel for the applicant next submitted that applicant was fit at the time of joining the Air Force and no disability whatsoever was noted on the record at that point of time, therefore, the disability occurred due to hard service conditions of the applicant.
-
Counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant is still agreeable to appear for re-assessment of his present position, therefore, a direction may be given to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial