T.A. No. 519/2010. Case: Brig (Retd.) Brijendra Singh Vs Union of India (UOI) and Ors.. Armed Forces Tribunal
| Case Number | T.A. No. 519/2010 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: S.R. Kalkal, Adv. and For Respondents: Anjana Gosain and Alifa Akbar, Advs. |
| Judges | A.K. Mathur, J. (Chairperson) and M.L. Naidu, Member |
| Issue | Army for Pension Regulations, 1961 - Regulaions 50, 53 and 179 |
| Judgement Date | May 25, 2010 |
| Court | Armed Forces Tribunal |
Order:
(Principal Bench, New Delhi)
-
The present petition has been transferred from Hon'ble Delhi High Court to this Tribunal on its formation.
-
Petitioner by this petition has alleged that he has not been given the disability pension. He made earlier petition before Adjutant General and CDA but without result. Therefore, petitioner has filed the present petition seeking direction to release disability element of pension to him as he had been found at the time of release by the Release Medical Board having 30% disability attributable to Military Service.
-
Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present petition are that petitioner was commissioned in the Indian Army on 14th March, 1971 and he sought pre-mature retirement on 02.08.2004 and he was accordingly discharged after completing 33 years and 4 months service. Petitioner claimed that Release Medical Board has recommended that he suffered from disability to the extent of 30% which is attributable to Military Service, therefore, he is entitled to 30% disability pension also.
-
Learned Counsel for the respondents placed before us the recommendations of the Medical Board in which Medical Board has opined that the petitioner's primary hypertension is due to stress and strain of the service and they have assessed the disability to the extent of 30% only for life. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present petition before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court praying that he may be given disability element of pension to the extent of 30%. This petition was transferred to this Tribunal on its formation for final disposal.
-
A reply was filed by the respondents and respondents have relied on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Mahavir Singh Narwal v. Union of India cited as 111 (2004) DLT 550 which was taken up before Hon'ble Supreme Court in appeal and it has now been dismissed. It was also contended by the respondents in their reply that as per Regulation 50 the incumbent who has sought voluntary retirement is not entitled to disability pension.
-
We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. We have also examined this matter in the light of the decision in the case of Mahavir Singh Narwal (supra) decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court. We have also decided similar issue in the matter of Brig. K.K. Khajuria (Retd.) v. Union of India and Ors. T.A. No. 176/2009 and in that matter after examining the...
To continue reading
Request your trial