An application for disability pension under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act must be filed within three years from the rejection order, and the Medical Board's assessment is binding unless proven erroneous.

ORDER :

1. Under assail is the order dated 17^th June, 2022 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench at Chennai in O.A. No.12 of 2021.

2. The original applicant is the writ petitioner before this Court. The relief sought for before the Tribunal is challenging the rejection order dated 29.02.2020 passed by the fourth respondent in the first appeal, declining grant of disability pension to the petitioner and to direct the respondents to grant disability pension with effect from 24.07.1970, the date of discharge.

3. The facts in brief, as stated by the original applicant before the Tribunal, would reveal that he was enrolled in the Indian Army on 12.09.1962 and discharged from service on 24.07.1970, after rendering 7 years, 10 months and 12 days of service. The Invaliding Medical Board assessed the petitioner's disability due to “Neurosis” at 20% for one year and opined that the disability is neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. Thus, the petitioner's claim for disability pension was rejected by the competent authority as early as on 07.01.1971 itself.

4. First appeal was preferred on 07.01.2020 seeking grant of disability pension. However, the 4^th respondent rejected the appeal vide letter dated 29.02.2020, stating that the petitioner's claim is not entertainable, as it is more than five years old. The second appeal also was rejected on the same lines. Consequently, the petitioner filed the original application.

5. It is contended that the original application filed before the Tribunal is not maintainable, due to the limitation period prescribed under Section 22 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. The petitioner was discharged from service on 24.07.1970 and his claim was rejected on 07.01.1971 by the competent authority. After a lapse of more than 50 years, the petitioner preferred the first appeal on 07.01.2020, which came to be rejected in the year 2020. Thereafter, the original application was filed in the year 2021, which is beyond the prescribed limitation period. Further, the Medical Board assessed that the petitioner's disability is neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the Original Application filed by the petitioner.

6. Considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties to the lis on hand.

7. The facts remain that the writ petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army on 12.09.1962. While the petitioner was serving with 10 Ordnance Battalion, he was downgraded to Low Medical Category 'B' (BEE) temporary for six months for the disability “Neurosis 300” with effect from 27.11.1969. Thus, he was discharged from service on 24.07.1970 after rendering 7 years, 10 months and 12 days of service. The Invaliding Medical Board held at Military Hospital, Dehu Road on 30.07.1970 assessed the ID at 20% for one year and opined that the ID is neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. The application submitted for disability pension was rejected by the competent authority on 07.01.1971. The appeal filed before the 4^th respondent after a period of more than 50 years was rejected vide order dated 29.02.2020. Pertinently, the said order dated 29.02.2020 was challenged before Armed Forces Tribunal in the year 2021.

8. Section 22 of Armed Forces Tribunal Act contemplates period of limitation. Specifically, Section 22(1)(c) applies to orders passed by authorities prior to the commencement of the Act. In such cases, the application must be filed before the Tribunal within three years from the date of the order. However, in the present case, the application was filed approximately 50 years after the rejection order passed by the competent authority, challenging the order of the appellate authority. Therefore, the original application is clearly barred by the limitation period contemplated under Section 22 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act.

9. Undoubtedly pension is a continuing cause of action, but in the present case the disabi