Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. The applicant has been boarded out from his Army service on medical ground on 05.12.2005 with permanent category EEE with 60% of disability. After exhausting all the available statutory remedies, he has approached this Tribunal for the relief of disability pension. 2. According to the applicant, he was enrolled in the Madras Regiment on 25.04.1997. While the applicant was on annual leave, he met with a motor accident on 05.07.2004 and he was admitted in CMC Hospital, Vellore, Government General Hospital, Vellore, and thereafter in Military Hospital. Finally, the applicant was discharged from service on 05.12.2005. The applicant had completed 8 years 7 months and 6 days of Army service. The representation made by the applicant to the 3rd respondent claiming disability pension was rejected on 14.12.2006. The first appeal preferred by the applicant to the 2nd respondent on 31.01.2007 was also rejected on 10.03.2008 and the second appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. A dismissed Sepoy from the Army has challenged the order of Court Martial by way of filing W.P.No.17429 of 2000 before the High Court of Judicature at Madras and after the constitution of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench at Chennai, the said Writ Petition has been transferred to this Tribunal under Section 34(2) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. 2. The affidavit to the petition filed by the petitioner reads as follows:- The petitioner has enrolled as a Sepoy in the Indian Army and he had served at Srinagar in Jammu and Kashmir State in 201 Engineer Regiment. Thereafter, he was transferred and posted at Ranji in Bihar State. During his service, he was charged under Sections 39(f), 48 and 39(a) of the Army Act, for having found in a place prohibited by local order without a pass or written leave, and found under intoxication and absenting without leave. 2(a) The applicant has given his remarks for the said charges as f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. An erstwhile Sepoy of the Indian Army, who has been denied his disability pension by the 2nd respondent under the impugned letter No.2573979/RSME/98/PG-4 dated 6th July 1998, has approached this Tribunal for disability pension from the date of his discharge ie., on 01.03.1993. 2. According to the applicant, he joined as a Sepoy in the Indian Army on 07.02.1975 and while in military service he met with an accident and had fractured of his little finger leading to partial disability. According to the Release Medical Board, dated 13th November 1992, the disability was diagnosed as Fracture Proximal Phalanx, Little Finger RT (Optd) 816 The surgery took place at Sainik Military Hospital at Secunderabad. The applicant was sanctioned temporary disability pension for the period of five years and the 2nd respondent in his letter No.2573979/RSMB/93/PG-4, dated 7th January 1998, had asked the applicant to appear before the Re-Survey Medical B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. A septuagenarian, poor widow of late Havildar V.Ramasamy who had served in the Army for nearly 21 years and after his retirement joined in civil service as a Night Guard in PWD Department who was discharged from the said re-employment on 01.11.1970, subsequently breathed his last on 26.02.1986, has approached this Tribunal challenging the impugned order of the Fourth Respondent dated 21.08.2009 under which the claim for Second Family Pension was rejected. 2. The short facts as narrated in the affidavit to the petition relevant for the purpose of deciding this case sans irrelevant particulars are as follows:- The applicants husband late Havildar V.Ramasamy after serving in the Indian Army for 21 years was discharged from service after fulfilling 15 years of terms of engagement, was decorated with the following medals and certificates- i) Raksha Medal 1965 ii) Sainya Seva Services Medal with clasp Jammu and Kashmir Medal with clasp H...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. The applicant, who has been unfortunately denied his re-engagement due to the subsequent contract of disease by name Motor Neuron Disease (S3A3), and was discharged, has approached this Tribunal challenging the impugned order of the respondents dated 30th September 2010, which was passed on an earlier impugned order dated 5th May 2010. 2. According to the applicant, he joined the Navy as Sailor on 10th September 1987 at the age of 18 years and is due to retire from service after completing 23 years of unblemished record of service on 30th September 2023 on attaining the age of superannuation. As per the Navy Order (Starred), for a Sailor the maximum period of service permissible is 28 years for Artificier/MER, and 30 years for NMER or till the age of attainment of superannuation whichever is earlier. Initially the applicant was engaged for a period of 15 years and thereafter the applicant has been reengaged to serve for a further p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
(Order of the Tribunal made by Lt Gen (Retd) S Pattabhiraman) 1. The case pertains to a septuagenarian applicant, an ex-sepoyfrom The Madras Regiment, who, by way of Original Application No.25/2010, has approached the Tribunal seeking relief of Disability Pension and for setting aside the impugned order of the respondent denying him the same. 2. The short facts of the application, sans irrelevant particulars, are as follows: 2(a) The applicant was enrolled in the Indian Army on 26.06.1958 and discharged on 29.10.1963 after a service of 5 years and 4 months. He was discharged under Army Rule 13 (3) III (iii) as medically unfit. The applicant would stress on the fact that such a medical discharge, as per Army Rule 13 (3) III (iii) would be required to be carried out only on the recommendation of an Invaliding Medical Board (IMB). The applicant would say that he was 100 per cent fit when he was enrolled and was also ready to serve in alternate duties but was invalided out for reasons of b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. After a vehement argument, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, after coming to know that even if Regulation 123 of the Pension Regulations for the Air Force 1961 is challenged the petitioner is not entitled to the relief, has come forward to withdraw this petition. Endorsement made to that effect on the petition. 2.Undersuch circumstances, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn, but without cost....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. During the course of the argument, when the Tribunal exposed it mind after referring to the Judgment of this Tribunal delivered in T.A.No.171 of 2010 relating to the co-accused Mr. R.S.Singh wherein this Tribunal has directed the respondents to conduct denovotrial on the ground that the impugned warrant proceedings under which the punishment of dismissal and Rigorous Imprisonment were awarded to the said co-accused, the mandatory provisions contemplated under Regulations 27 and 29 of the Regulations for the Navy were not followed, the learned Assistant Judge Advocate SLT Chinmay Sharma has come forward, after getting a cue from his higher ups, to make an endorsement as to the effect that since the petitioner has not exhausted his statutory remedy, if he withdraws this petition and approaches the competent authority as per the rules contemplated under Navy Act 1957, the second respondent is ready to modify the sentence of dismissal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. The petitioner, who after serving in the Indian Air Force as Airman for nearly 12 years was boarded out from service on medical grounds on 16.06.1994 and was denied his disability pension on the ground that the invaliding diseases viz. Schizophrenia (295 V 6) and Hypertension (401, V 6) were neither attributable to nor aggravated by service as per the opinion of the Invaliding Medical Board (AFMSF-16), had knocked at the doors of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by way of filing W.P.No.24815 of 2001 challenging the opinion of the Invaliding Medical Board AFMSF-16, and praying grant of disability pension. After the constitution of the Regional Bench at Chennai, the said Writ Petition was transferred to this Tribunal under Section 34(2) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, and renumbered as T.A.No.196 of 2010. 2. The short facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition sans irrelevant particulars as narrated in the affid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. The Petitioner, an unfortunate Ex-Sergeant in the Indian Air Force, who after rendering 14 years and 244 days of regular service, had approached the Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh by way of filing the Writ Petition for grant of his service pension, which was denied on the ground that the minimum service required for pension is 15 years for his rank and that there is a shortage of 121 days in granting the pension. The writ petition filed by the petitioner viz W.P.No.11101 of 1999 was transferred to this Tribunal as per Section 34(2) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007 and renumbered as T.A.No.184 of 2010. 2. The short facts of the case of the petitioner as narrated in the affidavit to the petition run as follows:- The petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Air Force on 13.03.1962 as a combatant member in the trade of Electrician after undergoing necessary training in various field. The petitioner had put in 14 years and 24...
Tag this Judgment!