Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Kochi
Padmanabhan Nair, Member (J). 1. This Original Application is filed by an ex-service man challenging Annexures A3 and A4 orders passed by the Defence Pension Disbursing Officer, Ernakulam. The applicant was enrolled in the Indian Navy on 17.1.1956 and was discharged on 10.03.1966, after putting in a service of 10 years and 53 days. He was discharged in low medical category. He was found suffering from Ischemic Heart Disease. His disability was assessed at 50% and was found attributable to service. It was specifically held that as he was included in low medical category he was not given extension of service and was discharged. Initially no disability pension was sanctioned. He made several complaints and in 1974 finally he was informed that disability pension was sanctioned to him from 11.3.1966 to 19.1.1968, for a period of two years. Subsequently, the same was extended and made for life. The applicant was receiving disability pension consisting of service element and disability eleme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Kochi
Thomas Mathew, Member (A) 1. The applicant is a serving sailor of the Indian Navy, who is aggrieved by denial of an opportunity by the respondents to attend the SD(AE) 'Q' course. The applicant seeks nomination and induction in the said course. 2. It is averred by the applicant that he has had an outstanding service record in the Navy and due to his technical capabilities, diligence, sincerity and skills, he was posted as an aircraft technician at INS Hansa. In the Year 2002, he was shortlisted and then selected for Special Duty (SD) Officers Commission by the Service Selection Board. Being a 'non-artificer' he was sent to INS Shivaji as part of pre-commissioning course in September, 2002. On completion of training there, he was sent to Naval Institute of Aeronautical Technology (NIAT) at INS Garuda in March, 2003 for completion of his second phase of MECH Course. Another candidate, Shri. Somasundaram of Coast Guard also joined the applicant for attending SD(AE) qualifying course comm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Kochi
Thomas Mathew, Member (A): 1. The petitioner served in the Army for six years and thereafter was dismissed from service. He is aggrieved by the order of the respondents and has filed this petition with the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, which has now been transferred to this Tribunal. 2. The petitioner has averred that he joined the Army on 4.7.2000 and served in various parts of the country including Rajasthan, Jammu and Kashmir, and Gwalior. On 12.9.2001, he was admitted at Military Hospital ('M.H' for short), Pangode and thereafter at Naval Hospital, Kochi and then Air Force Hospital, Bangalore. He had developed some mental disorder while serving at Jammu and Kashmir. After his treatment, he was sent back to his unit. He was again admitted in M.H., Gwalior as the symptoms re-appeared. On 28.5.2005, he was sent on leave for treatment. Before his departure from his unit, he was made to sign some papers including the discharge certificate. 3. The petitioner has submitted that he was tak...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Kochi
Shrikant Tripathi Member (J): 1. Heard Mr.A.V.M Salahuddeen for the applicant and Mr.K.M.Jamaludheen for the respondents and perused the record. 2. By the instant O.A Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, the applicant has impugned the orders (Annexures -A1 and A3) whereby he was denied the disability pension. He has further prayed for the direction to the respondents to sanction and pay him disability pension with effect from 1st December 2004 along with 18% interest on the arrears. 3. The relevant facts are that the applicant A Vijayan, No. JC - 306006W, Ex-Subedar, was enrolled in the Indian Army, Madras Engineering Group, on 28th March 1980. In due course of time, he was promoted to the rank of Subedar with effect from 1st March 1997. A duly constituted Medical Board held on 14th October 2002 at INHS Asvini, Mumbai, placed the applicant in low Medical category S1H1A1P3E1 (temporary) and diagnosed that he had primary hypertension, gout and obesity disease. With effect f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Kochi
Thomas Mathew, Member (A). 1. The applicant is an Ex-Sailor of the Indian Navy who was discharged after 11 years and 204 days of service. He had signed up for a term of 10 years active and 10 years fleet reserve service. He is aggrieved by the denial of pension to him after completion of his terms of engagement and filed this application. 2. It is averred by the applicant that he enrolled in the Navy as a 'Boy' on 8.9.1962. After his Boy's service till 8.4.1964, he was inducted to Men's service and discharged from service on 9.4.1974 in accordance with the terms of engagement. The Certificate of Service (Annexure A.1) clearly indicates that he had enrolled for 10 years active service and 10 years fleet reserve service. Hence he is entitled to reservist pension which has not been granted to him. Since he heard that similarly placed persons have been granted pension by the Hon'ble Court and the Defence Minister, he submitted a representation to the Minister on 22.7.2010 which was rejecte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Kochi
Shrikant Tripathi, Member (J): 1. The applicant, G.K.Singh, Ex.Lac. No. 656303, filed Writ Petition No.14176 of 2005 before the Honourable High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore challenging the verdict of the District Court Martial whereby he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. In addition to the sentence of rigorous imprisonment, he was dismissed from service and also reduced to the ranks. 2. In this order, the applicant will be referred to as the accused and the victim will be referred to as the prosecutrix. 3. The accused was tried by the District Court Martial for two charges. The first charge was under Section 71 of the Air Force Act, 1950 for committing a civil offence, that is to say, using criminal force to a woman intending to outrage her modesty punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. The second charge was under section 65 of the Air Force Act, for an act prejudicial to the good order and Air Force discipline. The applicant pleaded no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Kochi
PadmanabhanNair, Member (J). 1. Petitioner, who was enrolled in the Territorial Army, was discharged from service stating that he is unlikely to become an efficient soldier under Rule 14(b)(iii) of the Territorial Army Rules framed under the Territorial Army Act. This proceedings was filed as a Writ Petition before the Honourable High Court of Kerala, challenging that order and the same is transferred to this Tribunal, consequent to its formation. 2. The petitioner was enrolled in the 122 Infantry Battalion (TA) Madras on 15th July, 2002, which was preceded by a physical test conducted on 6.6.2002 and a medical test conducted on 17.6.2002. He reported for training on 15.7.2002 and on 22.7.2002 the petitioner was admitted in the military hospital, Kannur. An X-ray was taken on his right leg. It is revealed that there is a fracture of the right tibia. On 24.7.2002 he was shifted to INS Sanjivani Hospital, Cochin. On 30.7.2002, the petitioner was discharged and advised rest for six weeks....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Kochi
Shri Kant Tripathi, Member (J) 1. The applicant, M.Even, had filed Writ Petition No.15381 of 2007 in the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to add his past service as Safaiwala from 21.3.1979 to 21.3.1994 to his second spell of service as Safaiwala and sanction him pension with effect from the due date. A prayer for quashing the order dated 19.3.2007 (Annexure G) passed by the first respondent has also been made. 2. The aforesaid Writ Petition has been received in this Tribunal under Section 34 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act and has been re-numbered as T.A.No.229 of 2010. 3. Most of the facts are not disputed. The applicant, M.Even, had two spells of service as Safaiwala in 115 Infantry Battalian, Territorial Army, Mahar Fort, Belgaum. He joined the first spell of service on 21st March 1979 and was discharged therefrom on 31.3.1994 on completion of terms of engagement (Annexure A Discharge Certificate). During the initial engagement of 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Kochi
Shrikant Tripathi, Member (J) 1. The applicant Captain C. Stanley John initially filed W.P.No.18561 of 2009 in the Honourable High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam for quashing the orders contained in Exts.P8, P10, P12, P13 and P18 and further claimed that his pension be directed to be refixed treating his total qualifying service as 30.5 years. He lastly claimed the relief that his 43% pension be restored according to Ext.P20. Interest has also been claimed. 2. On establishment of this Tribunal, the writ petition was transferred to the Tribunal and has been registered as T.A.No.122 of 2009. 3. The applicant was inducted in the Indian Navy as an Artificer Apprentice on 23rd January 1948 and on completion of the apprenticeship he was appointed as Engine Room Artificer on 9th August 1952 and rendered service as such upto 16th February, 1957. He was however commissioned as Sub Lieutenant with effect from 17th February 1957. The applicant got due promotions and rose upto the rank of Captain (e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Kochi
PADMANABHAN NAIR, MEMBER (J). When the case was taken up for hearing, the legal officer representing the respondents submitted that in the year 2005 the petitioner filed a petition seeking premature retirement, which was not granted. She was due to retire on 31.5.2006. However, she was given orders of discharge one month prior to retirement, on 30.4.2006, on orders from the competent authority. So, she was given orders of discharge one month short of actual date of retirement. Thus, she was denied pension. Challenging that order, this application has been filed. 2. It is further submitted by the legal officer that during the pendency of the application/writ petition and especially because of the interim order passed by the High Court, the petitioner continued in service till 31.5.2006 and she was allowed to retire on that date and she has been given all consequential benefits, which is allowable to a retired person. So, this application has become infructuous. In the result, the Transf...
Tag this Judgment!