JUDGMENT :

(Anil Kumar Upman, J.)

1. Heard.

2. The aforesaid writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 28.11.2022 passed by Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for brevity) whereby the Original Application (No.81/2011) filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

3. Brief facts of the case are that an application under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 was filed by the petitioner wherein it was prayed that the respondents be directed to grant Service Pension along with consequential benefits for the lifetime of her husband Late Ex Sep Anji Singh from 30.09.1963 to 04.08.1966 and thereafter Family Pension. In the application, it was averred by the petitioner that her husband was enrolled in the Army on 05.05.1960 and after rendering more than three years of service, he was found medically unfit for further retention in service and was consequently discharged from service on 30.09.1963 under Army Rule 13 (3) III (iii). It was further averred by the petitioner that at the time of enrolment, her husband was physically and mentally fit but later on, he suffered from the disability while in service and was consequently discharged form service on medical grounds. In these circumstances, her husband was eligible for grant of service pension and disability pension and after his death, she is eligible for grant of family pension. For the aforesaid relief, the petitioner approached the respondent and legal notice was also sent through her advocate but no heed was paid by the respondents to the grievances of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the petitioner had no option but to approach the Tribunal for redressal of her grievances.

4. Detailed reply to the application was submitted by the respondents wherein it was averred that service documents of Late Ex Sep Anji Singh have been destroyed after expiry of mandatory retention period. However, as per the Long Roll, late Ex Sep Anji Singh was discharged from service on 30.09.1963 and other columns of the Long Roll, which were required to be filled up are blank. It was further averred by the respondents that Late Ex Sep Anji Singh has not completed minimum qualifying service of 15 years, therefore, he was not eligible for grant of service pension. He was also not eligible for grant of Invalid Pension as he has not completed minimum 10 years of service in terms of Rule 198 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part-1). It was also averred that disability pension is granted to those Armed Forces Personnel who are discharged/invalided on account of a disability which is assessed above 20% and considered as attributable to or aggravated by military service. Finally, it was prayed by the respondents that the husband of the petitioner does not come under any of the above categories for grant of pension and therefore, the Original Application filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned tribunal has committed grave illegality in rejecting the claim of the petitioner and that the tribunal has not considered the case of the petitioner in right perspective and rejected the claim of the petitioner in an arbitrary manner. He further submits that in identical fact situation, same benefit has been granted to other person. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments:-

1. Union of India & Anr. vs Rajbir Singh : 2015 (12) SCC 264

2. Dharamvir Singh vs UOI : 2013 (7) SCC 316

3. Union of India vs Angad Singh Titaria : 2015 (12) SCC 257

4. Veer Pal Singh vs Secretary, Ministry of Defence : 2013(10) SCR 579 &

5. Union of India vs Manjeet Singh : 2015 (12) SCC 275

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the impugned order and submits that after considering each and every aspect of the matter, the learned Tribunal has passed the impugned order. He thus, sought dismissal of the writ petition.

7. We