OA 3106 of 2012. Case: Sudarshan Singh Kathait Vs Union of India. Armed Forces Tribunal

Case NumberOA 3106 of 2012
CounselFor Appellant: Rajindar Kumar, Advocate and For Respondents: Rajesh Sehgal, CGC
JudgesVinod Kumar Ahuja, J. (Member (J)) and Air Marshal (Retd.) S.C. Mukul, Member (A)
IssueArmed Forces Tribunal Act 2007 - Section 14
Judgement DateApril 23, 2014
CourtArmed Forces Tribunal


(Chandigarh, Regional Bench At Chandimandir)

  1. This is an application filed by the petitioner under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, for grant of disability pension.

  2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was enrolled in the Army in Boys service with effect from 20.12.1963 to 05.03.1966. He was sent for training and was posted at Military Hospital. It was further alleged that at the time of enrollment the petitioner was examined medically and was found fit. The Medical Board has also opined that at the time of joining the applicant was not suffering from any disease. The petitioner was discharged on completion of colour service. It was further alleged that the Medical Board had assessed the disability of the petitioner at 30% but had not given any opinion in regard to the cause of the disability and it was mentioned as 'unknown'. Thus it was prayed that the respondents be directed to grant disability pension in respect of the petitioner and his claim was rejected vide letters dated 01.01.1975 and 02.08.1978 and in subsequent appeal vide letter dated 17.07.2012. Hence the application filed by the petitioner.

  3. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents who filed reply and it was pleaded that the petitioner was not entitled to the grant of disability pension since the disability was not attributable to or aggravated by military service. It was also pleaded that the mental disorder diagnosed as a case of 'NEUROSIS' could not be detected at the time of enrollment, which is a constitutional disease and as such the disability has been rightly assessed as neither attributable to nor aggravated by the military service by duly constituted Medical Board and hence the claim was rightly rejected.

  4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records.

  5. The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner were that no such disease was detected at the time of enrollment and no reasoning has been given by the Medical Board as to why it was not attributable to or aggravated by Military service. It was also submitted that inchoate opinion cannot be taken of the Medical Board and as such the petitioner is entitled to the grant of disability pension.

  6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the disease suffered by the petitioner was due to domestic stress and not of service and as such the petitioner is not entitled to any...

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