ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, JAIPUR

12.

Versus UOI & Others …. Respondents For Applicant : None Present For Respondents : Mr. Brij Bihari Sharma, Advocate CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, MEMBER (J)

HON’BLE MR. SANJIV MITTAL, MEMBER (A)

O R D E R

27.01.2026

1. During the course of hearing, while none appears on behalf of the applicant, perusal of record reveals that this OA has been filed by the Original Applicant, ie, late Havildar Bajrang, praying for directing the Respondents to grant disability pension to him from the date of his discharge, ie, 23/9/1983. He had also prayed for payment of suitable compensation to him for mental agony and litigation.

2. Vide Reply Statement, the Respondents have submitted that the original applicant was enrolled in the Army on 08/2/1966 and was invalided out from service on 24/9/1983 under Rule 13 (3) item III (iii) having been found medically unfit for further military service. He had rendered 17 years, seven months and 16 days of service and was granted service pension for life. The IMB assessed the disability of the applicant, “High Hyper Metropia both Eye with Partial Amblyopia”, @ 80% for one year and considered it as neither attributable to nor aggravated

under extant rules and regulations.

3. Vide Order dated 30/7/2018, this Tribunal had directed the Respondents to hold a fresh RAMB of the original applicant to assess his present medical condition and the probable duration of the degree of disablement. However, it was brought to the notice of this Tribunal at a later date that the original applicant had already expired on 07/5/2016 as per the copy of Death Certificate dated 16/5/2016 brought on record by the counsel for the applicant in the MA No 881/2023 filed on 13/10/2023 for substitution of Smt Ved Kaur, the widow of deceased soldier, in place of the original applicant, which was allowed vide Order dated 10/9/2025. It is prudent to observe that the death of husband of the applicant way back in May 2016 was not informed to this Tribunal by the counsel for the applicant when the matter was listed for hearing on 30/7/2018, resulting in an inadvertent order to conduct RAMB of the original applicant by this Tribunal. In view of the death of the husband of the applicant prior to issuance of Order dated 30/7/2018, the Respondents could not comply with the Order ibid.

4. In view of the foregoing and since the disability of the original applicant was considered as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, he

since the original applicant was not eligible for grant of relief as prayed for in this

OA, his LR is also not eligible for grant of the same. Apart from this, we also find

that this OA has been filed after a hiatus of more than 30 years, for which the

Respondents have filed preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of this

OA in their Reply Statement filed in this matter.

5. The OA is accordingly dismissed being devoid of merit. No order on costs.

6. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed off.

(SANJIV MITTAL) (GOVERDHAN BARDHAR)

MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)

cda/-