O.A. No. 61 of 2010. Case: C.N. Nandanan, No. 7122087 Ex. Sepoy (CFN/Welder) Aged 64 Years, Kailasamangalath House, Edayaranmula West P.O., Pathanamthitta District, Kerala, Pin 689532 Vs The Union Of India, Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry of Defence (Army), South Block, New Delhi-110001 and Ors.. Armed Forces Tribunal

Case Number:O.A. No. 61 of 2010
Party Name:C.N. Nandanan, No. 7122087 Ex. Sepoy (CFN/Welder) Aged 64 Years, Kailasamangalath House, Edayaranmula West P.O., Pathanamthitta District, Kerala, Pin 689532 Vs The Union Of India, Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry of Defence (Army), South Block, New Delhi-110001 and Ors.
Counsel:For Appellant: Sri. C.R. Ramesh, Adv. and For Respondents: Sri. Tojan J. Vathikulam, Central Govt. Counsel for R1 to R6
Judges:Mr. Justice Shri Kant Tripathi, Member (J) and Lt. Gen. Thomas Mathew, PVSM, AVSM, Member (A)
Issue:Service Law
Judgement Date:December 05, 2012
Court:Armed Forces Tribunal
 
FREE EXCERPT

Order:

Shri Kant Tripathi, Member (J), (Regional Bench, Kochi)

  1. Heard Mr. C.R. Ramesh, appearing for the applicant and Mr. Tojan J. Vathikulam, Central Government Counsel, who vehemently argued for the respondents. The applicant, C.N. Nandanan, No. 7122087, Ex Sepoy, has filed this Original Application for disability pension with effect from 04.10.1974, the date of discharge. It is not in dispute that the applicant was enrolled on 16.6.1966 in the EME and was discharged therefrom on 4.10.1974 as he was found not fit to continue further in service. The applicant claimed disability pension, but it was rejected on the ground that his disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service.

  2. The respondents disputed the applicant's claim and stated that the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, therefore, he was not entitled for the disability pension. More so, the claim is of the year 1974-1975, which is highly time barred. It was next submitted on behalf of the respondents that records pertaining to the applicant have already been destroyed after the expiry of the retention period. Except the long roll, no other documents are with the respondents.

  3. The applicant filed supplementary affidavit today, annexing therewith the reply given to him under the Right to Information Act.

  4. It may not be out of context to mention that the applicant's claim for disability pension was forwarded to CCDA (P), Allahabad, on 11th March, 1975 by the concerned record office, which was rejected vide letter No. G3/74/9934/VI dated 17/25 July 1975 with the advice to the applicant to prefer appeal if he was aggrieved by the order. Since then, the applicant neither preferred any appeal nor approached any court on the judicial side against the refusal of the disability pension. He filed the Original Application in this Tribunal on 2nd July, 2010 after about 35 years of rejection of the claim by the CCDA (P), Allahabad. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had been moving representation after representation, therefore, the delay occurred. In our view, the laches attributable on the part of the applicant cannot be taken away...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL