OA 538 of 2014. Case: Kushal Singh Jaryal Vs Union of India. Armed Forces Tribunal
| Case Number | OA 538 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: C.D.S. Guleria, Advocate and For Respondents: R.N. Sharma, CGC |
| Judges | Rajesh Chandra, J. (Member (J)) and Air Marshal (Retd.) S.C. Mukul, Member (Ad.) |
| Issue | Army Act, 1950 - Section 8 |
| Judgement Date | April 21, 2014 |
| Court | Armed Forces Tribunal |
Order:
(Chandigarh, Regional Bench At Chandimandir)
1. Prayer in this petition is for grant of disability element of disability pension for 30% disability for life from the date of discharge together with benefit of rounding off.
2. In brief, the allegations that the petitioner was enrolled in the Army on 21.01.1971 in AYE medical category. On 01.04.1988 he sustained injury which caused fracture in left Patella and was downgraded to low medical category. This injury was considered by the Medical Board as attributable. Despite the petitioner being in low medical category, he was posted in the Field and hard living area and due to stress and strains of the service the disability aggravated. The petitioner was discharged from service on 14.03.1991. At the time of discharge, his release Medical Board was held which assessed the disability as attributable to military service being 30% for five years. However, the claim for disability pension was rejected by the PCDA(P) Allahabad vide letter dated 11.11.1991 by superseding the decision/opinion of the medical board and held the disability as not attributable to military service with an advice to the petitioner that he may prefer an appeal. The petitioner submitted appeal on 10.12.1991 but the same was rejected by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence vide letter dated 31.01.2005. Further the representation made by the petitioner on 04.09.2013 was rejected by the respondents vide letter dated 21.11.2013. Further contention is that once the medical board held the disability of the petitioner as attributable to military service, the PCDA(P) Allahabad had no authority to reject the same.
3. As the matter can be decided without calling for reply of the respondents, the arguments of the parties were heard and the case is being decided on merits.
4. The petitioner has filed the Photo Stat copy of the Release Medical Board as paper No. 41 to 54. It is clear from the medical board proceedings that at the time of discharge the petitioner was found suffering from the disability fracture Patella (left) attributable to military service for five years.
5. The petitioner has filed the grounds of second appeal as paper 14 onwards in which he has been mentioned that in the month of April, 1988 there was an inspection of Army Commander and the petitioner was posted as a special assignment in the Infantry School and was engaged on duty on day and night basis. The petitioner was ordered to put up the order-sheet of 'A' matters early in the morning although next day was a holiday. Under the orders of superior officer communicated to the petitioner through Ram Singh, messenger of the Infantry school, the petitioner was to reach in the office before 5.30 a.m. in Uniform. When the petitioner was going to the office in Uniform, he slipped in the bath room due to darkness and sustained injury. The Court of Inquiry was held in which it was...
To continue reading
Request your trial