ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, JAIPUR S2/1.

OA No 328/2021 with MA No 206/2021 Smt Madhu Kanwar, Wd/o No-1089359K Late Ex Swr Sumer Singh, R/o VPO-Araba Chauhan, Teh-Pachpadra, Distt-Barmer (Raj) …. Applicant Versus

1. The Union of India, through the Secretary to the Govt of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi - 110011

2. The PCDA (P), Allahabad (UP)- 211014

3. The OIC Armoured Corps Records, …. Respondents PIN-900476, C/o 56 APO For Applicant : Mr. RS Bhadauria, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Pyare Lal, Advocate CORAM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, MEMBER (J)

HON’BLE MR SANJIV MITTAL, MEMBER (A)

O R D E R

04.07.2025

1. By way of this Application under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has prayed directing the Respondents for reinstatement of her husband in Service till he was alive, ie., 19.10.2019, grant his Service/Invalid Pension and thereafter grant Family Pension to the Applicant along with consequential benefits and that the arrears be paid along with interest @ 12% per annum.

2. The brief facts of the case as enumerated by the Applicant are that the Applicant’s husband was enrolled in the Army on 16.08.1989. While serving with 17 Horse, the Applicant’s husband was granted Part of Annual Leave in Jul/Aug 1993 and during the leave period at hometown, he sustained accidental multiple injuries. The duly constituted Court of Inquiry opined that the incident was purely an accidental one and the Applicant’s husband was not blamed for the same. The Applicant’s husband was placed in low medical category and, consequently, after rendering 6 years, 8 months and 15 days of service, he was Discharged from Service on 30.09.1996 on medical grounds under Rule 13(3) III (v) read with Sub Clause 2(A) of Army Rules, 1954. The claim for grant of Disability Pension was processed to PCDA (P) who rejected the same on the grounds of the disability being considered as Neither Attributable to Nor Aggravated by Military Service (NANA) and he was granted Invalid Gratuity and Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity. The Applicant’s husband made representation for grant of Disability Pension, however, the same was rejected vide Armoured Corps Records letter dt 15.12.2016. In support of his claim, the Applicant relied upon Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of UOI & Ors Vs Rajpal Singh, 2009(1) SRJ 368 and submitted that her husband was discharged from Service under Rule 13(3) III (v) read with 2(A) of Army Rules, 1954, therefore, he was entitled for grant of Disability Pension. After death of her husband on 19.10.2019, the Applicant issued Legal Notice dt 20.03.2020 for grant of Disability Pension/Invalid Pension for lifetime of her husband and thereafter Family Pension for life, but to no avail. Therefore, the aggrieved Applicant has filed present OA.

3. The Respondents have filed a detailed reply to the Application. While not disputing the basic facts presented by the Applicant, the Respondents have submitted that the Applicant’s husband suffered the injury at his hometown while on leave, which has no causal connection to military service. The duly constituted Court of Inquiry also considered the injury as Not Attributable to Military Service. Since the disability of the Applicant’s husband was considered as NANA, his claim for grant of Disability Pension was rejected by PCDA (P) in terms of Rule 173 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part-1). The fact with regard to rejection of his Disability Pension claim was communicated to the Applicant’s husband with an advice to prefer an appeal before the Competent Authority, if he was not satisfied with the same. However, he did not file any Appeal within the stipulated timeframe. Further, since the Applicant’s husband had not completed minimum ten years of mandatory service for grant of Invalid Pension, he was also not eligible for grant of Invalid Pension in terms of Rule 198 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part-1). The OA is devoid of merit and