Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Jaipur
By The Tribunal:(Bhanwaroo Khan, J.) 1. The applicant Ex Hav Mohider Pal Yadav, who was initially enrolled in the Indian Army on 7.6.1967 and was discharged from service on 3.5.1984 on medical ground after completion of 16 years and 331 days of service, initially filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court Bench at Jaipur, which stood transferred to this Tribunal for adjudication and has been treated as Transferred Application. 2. The brief facts leading to this application are: that the applicant was initially enrolled in the Indian Army on 7.6.1967 and was discharged from service on 3.5.1984 on medical ground after completion of 16 years and 331 days of service. The initial Medical Board held in the year 1984 assessed his disability at 40%, attributable to service. Thereafter, from time to time, the applicant was subjected to Resurvey Medical Board and finally, in the year 1998, the Resurvey Medical Board assessed his disability at 20% for 10 years. However, on account of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Jaipur
By The Tribunal:(Bhanwaroo Khan, J.) 1. The applicant Ratansingh, who was enrolled in the Indian Army on 28.11.1987 and was invalided out from service with effect from 13.9.1995, initially filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court Bench at Jaipur, for grant of disability pension to him with effect from 13.9.1995, the date when he was invalided out from service, which stood transferred to this Tribunal for adjudication vide order dated 10th November, 2009. 2. The brief facts leading to this application are: that the applicant was enrolled in the Indian Army in 123 Inf Battalion on 28.1.1987 and was invalided out from service on 13.9.1995 after completing 7 years 10 months of service (inclusive of 4 years and 5 months embodied service and 3 years and 5 months unembodied service). The Invaliding Medical Board held on 20.2.1995 found that the applicant was suffering from two diseases viz., Hyper Metropia C Amblyopia Rt Eye and SN hearing loss (Rt) and composite disabilities suf...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Jaipur
By The Tribunal (Lt Gen Susheel Gupta): 1. The applicant, Smt. Chav Kanwar w/o late Sepoy Kaloo Singh had filed a writ petition in the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur praying for grant of mustering out pension from the date of release of her husband, i.e., 15.7.1946 to the death of her husband, i.e., 18.5.1994 and ordinary family pension thereafter. The writ petition has been transferred to this Tribunal under Sec.34 of the Armed Forces Tribunals Act, 2007 and admitted as Transferred Application No.29 of 2009. 2. The applicant has averred that her late husband, Sepoy Kaloo Singh was enrolled in Ist Punjab Regiment on 11.12.1939 and was released from the Army consequent upon reduction of the Indian Army on demobilization on 14.7.1946 after having rendered 6 years 7 months exemplary service without being paid any pension or gratuity. Also, that her late husband, as per entries in the Discharge Book was wounded twice, once on 11.2.1944 and second time on 27.11.1945 while on active service ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Jaipur
BY THE COURT: The applicant initially filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur claiming relief regarding grant of disability pension, which stood transferred to this Tribunal vide order dated 11.1.2010 for adjudication. The undisputed facts of this case are: that the applicant was enrolled in the Indian Army on 9.4.1963 and was invalided out from service on 11.5.1967 having disability assessed at 100%. He was granted disability pension. Thereafer, periodically he was subjected to Resurvey Medical Board in the year 1971, 19713, 1977, 1979, 1981. Ultimately, he was subjected to Resurvey Medical Board held on 19.8.1997, which assessed his disability below 20%, as such, his disability pension was stopped with effect from 19th August, 1997. Since the Resurvey Medical Board held on 19.8.1997 was for five years, he was again subjected to Resurvey Medical Board in the year 2003, which also assessed his disability below 20%. Hence this application claiming for grant of dis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Jaipur
By The Tribunal: 1. The brief facts leading to this application are: that the applicant joined the Indian Army on 1.1.1971 and was invalided out from service in medical category EEE. At the time of his invalidment, his disability was assessed at 60% for two years, which was attributable to military service. Thereafter, he was brought before the Resurvey Medical Baord on 31.7.1973, 11.8.1975 and 8.9.1977, which assessed his disability at 40% for two years, 40% for two years and 20% for two years respectively. However, despite the fact that Resurvey Medical Board assessed the disability of the applicant at 20%, the Medical Advisor posted in the office of the Principal Controller of Defence (Accounts) without examining the applicant physically reduced his disability to less than 20%, as a result of which, the applicants disability pension was discontinued with effect from 8.9.1977. In such circumstances, the applicant preferred an appeal and the appeal medical board of the applicant was h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Jaipur
By The Tribunal: 1. The applicant was appointed on the post Havaldar (Pharmacist) on 28.12.1989 and he was sanctioned disability pension w.e.f. 1.6.2008 but vide letter dated 17.4.2009, the disability element of disability pension was stopped because of the retirement from service at his own request on compassionate ground. As per this letter, a person retired voluntarily, is not entitled to disability element of disability pension. After going through the record, we hold that in so many cases, this Tribunal has decided that inspite of the fact that disabled person having attributability or aggravation, if caused and sought voluntarily retirement at his own request, then he is entitled for disability pension. This view has been taken in the case of Ex Naik R.K.Sharma v. Union of India and others (O.A. No.163 of 2010) decided on 12th November, 2010, in which, it has been held that voluntary retirement is no ground for stoppage of disability pension. The case in hand, as per later dated ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Jaipur
By The Tribunal: Factual matrix of the case is not in dispute that the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 24.3.1998 and was sent for training to Mahar Regimental Centre. During training period, the applicant fell ill and was admitted in the hospital on 5.6.1998. After discharge, he was again admitted in the hospital on 11.10.1998 and remained there till 15.12.1998. Again the applicant was admitted in the hospital on 30.12.1998 and finally, after discharge from the hospital, the Commanding Officer of the Unit had discharged him from service under Army Rule 13(3)(iv) on the ground that he was unlikely to become an efficient soldier. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that since the applicant had suffered from the disease and disability, it was mandatory for the non-applicants to hold a Medical Board for assessing the percentage of disability as the applicant fell sick during the course of training and his discharge does not come in the category of unlikely to become an effic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Jaipur
By The Tribunal:[Bhanwaroo Khan (J)] 1. The brief facts leading to this application are: that the applicant was enrolled in the Indian Army on 14th January, 2000 and was released from service at his own request under Army Rule 13(3)III(iv) on 31st January, 2006, after holding a Release Medical Board, which assessed his disability severe depressive episode F-322 at 20%. The Release Medical Board considered his disability as neither attributable to nor aggravated by service, hence the applicant could not be granted disability pension. It was alleged that during recruit training, the applicant sustained stress fracture Tibia (Lt.) for which he was hospitalized in Military Hospital, Jabalpur on 1.11.2000 to 9.12.2000. 2. The non-applicants filed a detailed reply to the application in which they agreed to the contention of the applicant that because of severe depressive episode, after putting in 6 years and 18 days of service the applicant was discharged from service and the Release Medical...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Jaipur
By The Tribunal:[Bhanwaroo Khan (J)] 1. The challenge in this application is the order dated 10.7.2009 for convening court of inquiry against the applicant whereby on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Banwarilal, court of inquiry was conducted against the applicant by resorting to the proceedings under rule 180 of the Army Rules, 1954. The applicant wants that the proceedings of court of inquiry as also contemplation of disciplinary action against him may be set aside and quashed as these proceedings are devoid of any evidence against him. 2. The brief facts leading to this application are: that after having commissioned in the Army, while the applicant was posted as Director Recruiting RO (HQ), Jaipur, complainant Banwarilal met him with a request for suitable employment in the Recruiting Office. After verifying the antecedents of complainant Banwarilal, the applicant employed him as a domestic servant for performing normal household duties and also issued a Pass as Sahayak of DI...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Jaipur
By The Tribunal(Lt Gen Susheel Gupta) 1. The applicant, Ex Rect/Clk Mangi Lal has filed this Original Application praying for quashing of his discharge order and for reinstatement in service. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was enrolled as a Clerk in the Army on 16.9.2009 and was undergoing training at Artillery Centre, Hyderabad. Whilst undergoing his Basic Military Training, he was subjected to a Proficiency Aptitude Test in the 10th week of training. It is mandatory for all the recruit Clerks to pass this test with minimum percentage of 40% before he is allowed to continue the training for a clerk. The applicant along with 10 other recruit clerks had failed in the above test and as per existing Rules, was offered the option for change of trade to Soldier General Duty or Soldier Tradesman, for which, he was made to apply and he did so. Whilst seven of the clerks, who had failed in the Proficiency Aptitude Test, were adjusted against the vacancies in other trades, th...
Tag this Judgment!