T.A. No. 46 of 2010. Case: C. Subba Rayudu S/o C. Narappa Vs The Major, Senior Record Officer, Madras Regiment. Armed Forces Tribunal
| Case Number | T.A. No. 46 of 2010 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Ilangovan, Adv. by Legal Practitioner CDR (Retd) SP (Legal Aid-counsel appointed by T.N. Legal, Services Authority) and For Respondents: S. Seethalakshmi, SCGSC and Sandeep Kumar, JAG Officer |
| Judges | A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J. (Member (J)) and S. Pattabhiraman, Member (A) |
| Issue | Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 - Section 173; Army Rule - Rules 13(3), 173 and 183; Army Pension Regulations, 1961 - Regulations 183 and 227 |
| Judgement Date | August 19, 2010 |
| Court | Armed Forces Tribunal |
Order:
A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J. (Member (J)), (Regional Bench, Chennai)
-
The petitioner, who had put in approximately one year of Army service, unfortunately met with an injury during his course of training in the scrotum, was discharged out of service on medical ground on 20th August 1986, after exhausting all his remedies for the claim of disability pension, has lastly knocked at the doors of the Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad by way of filing W.P. No. 18965 of 2000, which has subsequently been transferred to this Regional Bench of Armed Forces Tribunal in accordance with the provisions of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, and reassigned T.A. No. 46 of 2010.
-
The averments in the affidavit to the petition in brief are, that the petitioner was recruited in the Army service on 20th August 1985 and during the course of his employment, during night parade, the petitioner had received an injury in the scrotum, which led to a surgery at Military Hospital at Nilgris and he was hospitalised for nearly two months and thereafter, he was discharged out of service on medical ground on 20th August 1986. When the petitioner had approached the competent authority for grant of disability pension, the same was rejected on the ground that the disability is not attributable to nor aggravated by military service, vide Government of India, Ministry of Defence letter No. 2703/DGR/E.M.P-3, dated August 1989. The petitioner has also approached the Government of India for a suitable alternative employment, but the same was also turned down by saying that the petitioner is unfit for employment, but his disability is attributable to military service. The respondent has not given any guidance or direction to the petitioner for getting the disability pension or for any other alternative employment. Due to financial crunch the petitioner could not take legal action immediately. Hence, the delay. The petitioner had issued legal notice to the respondent on 17.07.2000. The reply notice sent by the respondent contains baseless reasons. Hence, the petition for grant of disability pension.
-
The respondent in its counter would contend that the petition is devoid of merit and the same is also highly belated. The respondent would admit that the petitioner was enrolled in the Army on 20th August 1985 and invalided out of service with effect from 21st August 1986 under Army Rule 13(3)IV even before completion of his training. During his service in the Army, the petitioner was admitted in Military Hospital, Wellington for the period from 25th December 1985 to 6th January 1986 and thereafter, from 19th June 1986 to 26th July 1986 for the diagnosis of 'VARICOCELE LT (OPTD)'. The petitioner was invalided out of service on medical category 'EEE' with 14% to 19% of disability. As per the opinion of the Invaliding Medical Board, the petitioner was not keen to continue in service, in view of the subjective symptoms that he could not be a good soldier. The petitioner's claim for disability pension was...
To continue reading
Request your trial