O.A. No. 156 of 2014. Case: Bhaskaran T.N. Vs Union of India and Ors.. Armed Forces Tribunal
|Case Number:||O.A. No. 156 of 2014|
|Party Name:||Bhaskaran T.N. Vs Union of India and Ors.|
|Counsel:||For Appellant: A. Viswanathan, Adv. and For Respondents: P.J. Philip, Central Govt. Counsel|
|Judges:||S.S. Satheesachandran, J. (Member (J)) and Vice Admiral M.P. Muralidharan, Member (A)|
|Judgement Date:||November 23, 2015|
|Court:||Armed Forces Tribunal|
Vice Admiral M.P. Muralidharan, Member (A), (Regional Bench, Kochi)
The applicant, Bhaskaran. T.N., No. 180047N, Ex-ERA-3 was enrolled in the Indian Navy on 20 October 1970 as a direct entry Artificer and was discharged on medical grounds on 21 January 1977 in the rank of ERA-3. At the time of discharge as his invaliding diseases were considered as neither attributable to nor aggravated by Naval service, his claim for disability pension was rejected. Subsequently the applicant was sanctioned disability pension with composite disability of 60% rounded off to 75% for life, with effect from 17 October 2011 based on decision of the First Appellate Authority.
The applicant had earlier filed O.A. No. 16 of 2014 seeking disability pension from 21 February 1977 to 16 October 2011, i.e., intervening period between discharge and date of sanctioning of disability pension. That Original Application was disposed of on 13 June 2014 with a direction to the Respondents to take appropriate decision regarding the applicant's claim for disability pension within a period of four months. The respondents vide letter No. PN/0134/DP/651/10 dated 19 September 2014 (Annexure A10) rejected the claim of the applicant for grant of disability pension for the intervening period from February 1977 to October 2011. Hence this appeal.
Sri. A. Viswanathan, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that while the claim of the applicant for disability pension was initially rejected, the First Appellate Committee had granted him disability pension considering one of his disabilities, i.e., 'chronic colitis' as aggravated by Naval service and the other disability 'Neurosis' as attributable to service. The applicant was accordingly sanctioned disability pension for a composite disability of 60% rounded off to 75%, with effect from 17 October 2011, i.e., date of the Appeal Medical Board (AMB), (Annexure A2).
The learned counsel further submitted that the applicant then preferred a second appeal in May 2012, essentially seeking pension with effect from 20 February 1977 instead of 17 October 2011 (Annexure A5). Later, on receipt of PPO based on his first appeal (Annexure A3), observing anomalies, the applicant sought correction of his rank in the PPO and enhancement of pension to match that of his rank (Annexure A7). As he did not get any response from the Respondents on both the issues, the applicant filed O.A. No. 16 of 2014 in this Tribunal, which was...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL