R.A. No. 21 of 2013 and O.A. No. 06 of 2013. Case: Ex. No 14529054H Sep B. Suresh Babu Vs The Commandant Army Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt and The Chief Record Officer EME Records. Armed Forces Tribunal
| Case Number | R.A. No. 21 of 2013 and O.A. No. 06 of 2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Party-in-Person and For Respondents: Mr. B. Shanthakumar, SPC |
| Judges | V. Periya Karuppiah, J. (Member (J)) and LT. Gen. Anand Mohan Verma, Member (Ad.) |
| Issue | Defence |
| Judgement Date | January 16, 2014 |
| Court | Armed Forces Tribunal |
Order:
LT. Gen. Anand Mohan Verma, Member (Ad.), (Regional Bench, Chennai)
-
The petitioner has filed this Review Application requesting for reviewing the order of this Tribunal dated 5th June 2013 in O.A. 06 of 2013 by granting service element disability pension with 50% disability with effect from the date of discharge, i.e. 29.12.1977.
-
The petitioner in his Review Application would state that the points raised in this R.A. are those his legal counsel Mr. M.K. Sikdar should have raised in his Original Application No. 6 of 2013 when it was in progress due to which his case failed. The petitioner would go on to state the facts of his enrolment and Invaliding Medical Board in April 1984. He would state that when he was examined by a Medical Board at Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt., he was told by the medical specialist that since he had come through Court order, his disability percentage had been increased adding that since the petitioner knew the rules well he should get pension from Court. The petitioner would state that he noticed egoism and vindictive attitude in the medical officer as if he had challenged their profession. Though the petitioner's disability was increased to 40% for life, yet he was not recommended for grant of disability pension. The petitioner would state that the judgment dated 5th June 2013 passed by this Tribunal was not satisfactory due to the reasons stated in the order itself, viz., the case of A.V. Damodaran, disability does not fulfil the conditions of Para 173 of Pension Regulations for the Army 1961 and the relief was not granted since two Medical Boards had opined that the IDs are not attributable to nor aggravated by military service. The petitioner would while agreeing that the opinion of the Medical Board must be given due weightage, since the disease occurred during the service, it should be held attributable to or aggravated by military service. The petitioner would go on to cite various sections of Entitlement...
To continue reading
Request your trial