The Tribunal erred in granting disability pension without jurisdiction and misapplying the applicable regulations, lacking proof of causal connection to military service.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.

1. In the instant writ petition as filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India the judgment and order dated 22.07.2024 as passed in OA no. 31 of 2023 with MA no. 16 of 2023 by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Kolkata Bench (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Tribunal’ in short) is impugned.

2. By the impugned judgment, the said Tribunal found that the original applicant before him is entitled to get disability pension at the rate of 44% by rounding it off to 50% for life with effect from 01.03.2021 and accordingly directed disbursement of due and admissible arrears within a specified time.

3. The respondent of the said original application that is the Union of India felt aggrieved and thus, preferred the instant writ petition.

4. At the time of hearing Mr. Kanan duly led by Mr. Kundalia, learned Senior Advocate at the very outset submits before this Court that for effective adjudication of the instant writ petition the following rules, regulations and guidelines are to be looked into which are as under:

(i) Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards to Armed Forces Personnel, 2008.

(ii) Pension Regulations for the Army, Part-I (2008).

(iii) Pension Regulations for the Army, Part-II (2008)

(iv) Guide to Medical Officers (Military Pensions), 2002.

(v) Amendment to Chapter-VI and Chapter-VII, Guide to Medical Officers (Military Pensions).

5. In course of his submission, Mr. Kanan submits before this Court that he would advance his argument on the following three points namely;

(i) The impugned judgment has been passed by the said Tribunal without having jurisdiction to try the lis before him,

(ii) The impugned judgment was passed considering irrelevant rules and regulations,

(iii) The said Tribunal has passed the impugned order placing reliance upon some reported decisions which are distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the original application as disposed by it.

6. At the time of hearing, Mr. Kanan at the very outset draws attention of this Court to page no. 3 of the informal paper-books which contains the list of dates. It is submitted by Mr. Kanan that from the said list of dates it would reveal that the respondent/ original applicant was enrolled in the Army (Corps of Signals) on 26.02.1991 and he was discharged from army service on 28.02.2021 on completion of service under Army Rule 13(3) Item no. I(i)(a).

7. It is thus submitted that since the respondent/original applicant was discharged from army service on completion of service in the year 2021, the pensionary benefits of the respondent/original applicant would be governed as per the “Pension Regulations for the Army Part I” (2008) which came into force with effect from 01.07.2008.

8. It is further submitted by Mr. Kanan that from the materials placed before this Court it would reveal that before his discharge, the respondent/ original applicant appeared before the Release Medical Board (RMB in short) wherein the said RMB found that the respondent / original applicant was suffering from the diseases “stroke intract right middle cerebrals artery with left hemi paresis” and “Diabetes Mallitus Type II”. It is further submitted by Mr. Kanan that the RMB assessed the disabilities to the tune of 13% and 20% respectively and came to a finding that the said two diseases are ‘Neither Attributable Nor Aggravated’ (NANA in short) by military services and the said decisio