Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Kochi
..... .2008. 13. the two issues to be resolved in the instant case are, firstly whether the army acts and rules are relevant to the dsc or not, and secondly, whether the petitioner is eligible to be issued his army discharge certificate. we have perused the relevant orders and these are discussed in the subsequent paragraphs. 14. the army act, 1950 in section 3(vi) has defined a 'corps' in the following manner:- 'corps' means any separate body of persons subject to this act which is prescribed as a corps for the purpose of all or any of the provisions of this act . 15. the army rule, 1954, chapter vii, rule 187 reads as follows .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Kochi
THOMAS MATHEW, MEMBER (A). The petitioner is the widow of a Havildar of the Army who died in harness due to Myocardial Infraction. The petitioner is aggrieved that the respondents rejected her claim for Special Family Pension and have granted only Family Pension. 2. Late Hav. P. Krishnankutty Nair joined the Military Service on 24.3.1948 as a Clerk and while serving at a Corps Headquarters located in Jammu and Kashmir, was admitted to the hospital on 22.2.1969 and diagnosed as a case of Functional Premature Heart Beat Ventricular Extrasystol. He was discharged from the hospital as a low medical category BEE(Temporary) for six months on 26.2.1969. He was readmitted on 16.5.1970 and expired on 21.8.1970, his death being attributed to 'Acute Myocardial Infraction'. However, his death was not accepted as attributable to or aggravated by the military service. Therefore, special family pension was denied and family pension was given to the petitioner. 3. The respondents have contended that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Kochi
PADMANABHAN NAIR, MEMBER (J). The petitioner claiming to be the widow of late Sepoy Sri.Krishna Pillai has filed this T.A. as Writ Petition (C) No. 8305 of 2008 before the Honourable High Court of Kerala for a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to disburse the Family Pension on account of the death Sri.Krishna Pillai to the petitioner within a time limit. The same was transferred to this Tribunal consequent to its formation. 2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this Transferred Application is as follows: Deceased Krishna Pillai enrolled in the Army on 2.4.1963. He was discharged on 30.4.1980. He died on 24.7.1997. The petitioner claimed family pension on the ground that Krishna Pillai married her on 19.4.1977 in accordance with the customary rites. Two children by name Honey Krishna and Shenoy Krishna were born to them in the wedlock. Honey Krishna, the son of the petitioner was unmarried on the date of filing the Writ Petition. Shenoy Krishna, the daughter was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Kochi
THOMAS MATHEW, MEMBER (A). The petitioner is an ex-serviceman who was discharged from the Army being undesirable under Army Rule 13(iii)(v) with effect from 4th December, 1991. Aggrieved by the action of the Army, the petitioner requested for a denovo enquiry, deletion of 'non-ex-serviceman' entry from the discharge book, permission to serve till he qualify for pension and in the interim be reinstated pending final disposal of the O.P. 2. The petitioner was enrolled in the regiment of artillery as a Sepoy at Nasik Road Camp on 6th June, 1980. On completion of his military training, he was posted to 68 Field Regiment at Assam. Since then he has served with this regiment at Coimbatore, Sri Lanka, Rajasthan and Devlali till his discharge on 4th December, 1991. During his service of 11 years and 6 months, he was punished five times for different offences and consequently five red ink entries were made in his service records. 3. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice (SCN) on 31...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Kochi
THOMAS MATHEW, MEMBER (A). The petitioner is the father of late Lt. Mathew Alexander who died while in service due to severe head injury as a consequence of motor cycle accident on 30.11.1997. The officer along with a brother officer was travelling from his Commandant's residence to the officers mess when he met with the accident. The deceased officer was a bachelor and the court of enquiry had determined the death of the officer as attributable to active military service in peace. The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of Special Family Pension by the first respondent. He filed the writ petition before the Kerala High Court, to declare death of Lt. Mathew Alexander as attributable to military service and accordingly pay the terminal benefits including family pension to his dependents. The writ petition has now been transferred to this Tribunal. 2. The appeal by the petitioner was rejected by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence on 27th October, 1999 intimating that the i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Kochi
PADMANABHAN NAIR, MEMBER (J) Petitioners are parents of Nelson.K.T, who was enrolled as Sepoy/Clerk (Store Keeper) in the Army on 6.11.1980, who had absented from the unit lines with effect from 6 AM on 31.10.1987. The petitioners' claim is that their son, Nelson.K.T was missing from 31.10.1987 and nothing was heard about him for more than seven years. According to them, they are entitled to family pension, treating Nelson.K.T as dead, in view of the provisions of Section 108 of the Evidence Act. This application was originally filed as W.P(C).No.32811/2006 before the Honourable High Court of Kerala, which is transferred to this Tribunal, consequent to its formation. 2. The petitioners' son, Nelson.K.T was serving with 56 Company ASC (Supply), Bangalore. On 26.9.1987, he was sent on temporary duty to 65 Company ASC (Supply) Type D. He reported to 65 Company ASC (Supply) on the same day. It is averred that the first petitioner received a copy of apprehension roll sent by the third respo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Kochi
THOMAS MATHEW, MEMBER (A). The petitioner is an Ex-service man who retired from Air Force after serving for almost 18 years. He was invalided from service having been found medically unfit for further service in the Air Force. The petitioner is aggrieved by the denial of disability pension by the respondents and filed this writ petition with the Honourable High Court of Kerala which has now been transferred to this Tribunal. 2. The petitioner has averred that he was returning to his place of duty after availing one day's casual leave on 11.9.1993 when he met with a road accident and sustained injuries to his head. After initial treatment in a civil hospital, he was admitted at Military Hospital, Chandigarh and treated there. Due to mismanagement in treatment, his condition was aggravated and it resulted in 'Laryngeal Trauma'. He was advised to be employed in sedentry duties and the disability was assessed at 30%. He was subsequently discharged on medical grounds on 21.3.2005. The disab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Kochi
PADMANABHAN NAIR, MEMBER (J). 1. When the matter is taken up for hearing, it is pointed out by counsel for the respondents that this Tribunal is having no jurisdiction to deal with this matter. 2. The petitioner had attended Regimental Recruitment Parade, organised by the Madras Engineering Group, during September, 2003. A call letter was issued to him on 23.1.2004. When he reported for duty on 27.2.2004, he was not admitted on the ground that he crossed the upper age limit on 31.12.2003 and without noting that fact, the call letter was issued on account of a mistake committed by the clerk. He has filed the Writ Petition before the Honourable High Court challenging that order. The case is transferred to this Tribunal, consequent to its formation. 3. Under the provisions of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, this Tribunal can consider matters of persons who are governed by the provisions of the Army Act, Air Force Act and the Navy Act. The petitioner is not even enrolled. So, he is not gove...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Kochi
PADMANABHAN NAIR, MEMBER (J). 1. The applicant, an Ex-service man who was discharged from service as per Ext.P1 Summary Court Martial Order dated 24.6.1997, has filed this proceedings as a writ petition before the Honourable High Court of Kerala claiming pension. The case has been transferred to this Tribunal consequent to its formation. 2. It is trite that when a person is dismissed from Army service, he is not entitled to claim pension as of right. Of course, there is a provision under the Pension Regulations for Army, Part-1,1961 to pay monthly pension to such person also by the competent authority. According to the applicant, since the order imposing punishment of court martial did not debar him from claiming pension and the punishment imposed is only dismissal, he is entitled to get pension in view of Regulation 113(a) of Pension Regulations for Army, Part-1, 1961 and also under Section 71 of the Army Act. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is specific...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Kochi
PADMANABHAN NAIR, MEMBER (J). 1. The applicant, who is a Colonel in the Army, is challenging a court martial, which is yet to be commenced. The allegation of the applicant is that he outraged modesty of a lady officer. According to the applicant, the entire allegation against him is false and a false case is foisted against him using a lady officer at the instance of Lt.Col Paramjit Singh Kohli, because of his personal enmity towards the applicant. The main contention raised against is that the court martial is barred by limitation. It is also argued that there is inordinate delay in initiating the proceedings and there is violation of Rule 122 of the Army Act and the court martial is initiated for extraneous and irrelevant considerations. We are of the considered view that these are all matters to be raised before the court martial at the appropriate time. So, without prejudice to the right of the applicant to raise all the contentions, which he has now raised before this Tribunal, be...
Tag this Judgment!