Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-929-605-4013

O.A. No. 88 of 2011. Case: Joy K.T. Vs The Union of India, The Chief of Army Staff, The Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) and The Officer-in-Charge (Records). Armed Forces Tribunal

Judgment Cited in Precedent Map Related
Case NumberO.A. No. 88 of 2011
CounselFor Appellant: Sri. C.R. Ramesh, Adv. and For Respondents: Shri Tojan J. Vathikulam, Central Govt. Counsel
JudgesShrikant Tripathi, Member (J) and Thomas Mathew, Member (A)
IssueArmed Forces Tribunal Act 2007 - Section 14
Judgement DateMonday January 14, 2013
CourtArmed Forces Tribunal

Order:

Shrikant Tripathi, Member (J), (Regional Bench, Kochi)

1. By this Original Application filed under section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, the applicant has claimed disability element of pension. The relevant facts are that the applicant Joy K.T. No. 6374403 Y was enrolled as Sepoy in ASC (AT) on 30th January, 1979 and was discharged therefrom on 31st December 1995. He had rendered 16 years 11 months 01 days service and was accordingly sanctioned service pension which is admittedly being received by him. The applicant was examined by a Release Medical Board which placed him in medical category BEE (P) with the disability 'Lichen Planus Hypertrophicus (Old)' at 20%. The applicant's claim for the disability element of pension was denied by the respondents on the ground that he was discharged at his own request on extreme compassionate grounds on fulfilling the condition of enrollment but before completion of the tenure.

2. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was entitled to disability element of pension as per the judgment of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Mahavir Singh Narwal v. Union of India and Others (2004 (74) DRJ 661). It was also submitted that the judgment of the Delhi High Court remained in tact even before the Apex Court, as the Special Leave Petition filed by the Union of India and Others was dismissed.

3. Mr. Tojan appearing for the respondents argued that the disability element of pension was not payable in a case where discharge is granted on the request of the individual considering his compassionate grounds.

4. We have already examined aforesaid question recently in O.A. No. 3 of 2012 (Anilkumar B.V. Union of India and Others) and had answered the question in favour of the applicant holding that the person discharged even on his own request was entitled to disability pension if the disability was 20% or more and was attributable to or aggravated by the military service. The decision rendered in the aforesaid O.A. squarely covers the instant case also. Observations made in the aforesaid O.A. being relevant on the point, are being re-produced as follows:

4. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that no doubt the applicant was discharged on his own request but he had a disability which was aggravated due to the military service, therefore, his request for the disability pension was tenable as per the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Mahavir Singh Narwal v...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT