* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 06.11.2024 Pronounced on: 06.12.2024 + W.P.(C) 14446/2024 MAJ. (RETD.) DR. RAJESH KUMAR BHARDWAJ .....Petitioner Through: Mr.Aayush Agarwal &

Mr.Nilesh Kumar, Advs.

versus UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF DEFENCE & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Neeraj, SPC with Mr.Vedansh Anand (GP), Mr.Sachin Saraswat &

Ms.Soumyadip Chakraborty, Advs.

Major Anish Muralidhar.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR

J U D G M E N T

NAVIN CHAWLA, J.

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Order dated 18.05.2022 passed by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as „AFT‟), Principal Bench, New Delhi in a Review Application, being RA No.21/2016 in OA No.556/2014, moved by the petitioner.

2. The petitioner challenges the said Order on the ground that it has unjustifiably deferred the adjudication of his review Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 14446/2024 Page 1 of 8 application sine die observing that it would await the outcome of the appeal pending adjudication before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Diary No. 21811/2018, titled Ex Sgt. Girish Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

Case of the Petitioner

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was commissioned in the Indian Army on 27.12.1982, and served with commendable dedication until 07.01.1997, when the petitioner sought premature retirement, which was duly granted. His career in service encompassed challenging assignments, including service in Siachen and Jaffna, Sri Lanka, both known for their hazardous and demanding conditions.

4. During his service, the petitioner sustained significant injuries, namely a “tear anterior cruciate ligament” and “medical meniscus (left)”, which resulted in him being placed in a low medical category while on duty. A Court of Inquiry unequivocally found these injuries attributable to military service. Following his retirement, a Release Medical Board assessed the petitioner‟s disability at 60%, later broad-banded to 75%. The claim of the petitioner for grant of disability pension was, however, rejected on 20.10.1997.

5. The petitioner challenged the above decision by way of a Writ Petition, being W.P.(C) No. 22524/2005. The same was later transferred to the learned AFT and the learned AFT Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 14446/2024 Page 2 of 8 directed the petitioner to make a necessary representation to the respondents for the grant of the same.

6. Later, only the disability element of his pension was granted to the petitioner by the Army, while the service element of pension was denied. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed another Original Application before the learned AFT, being OA No.556/2014, to claim the service element of his disability pension. The same was, however, dismissed by the learned AFT on 01.03.2016 on the ground that the service element of disability pension is not available to Army Personnel who sought voluntary retirement from service.

7. The petitioner then filed a review application, being RA No.21/2016, which has been pending for more than six years, and by its impugned order dated 18.05.2022, adjourned sine die to await the outcome of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ex Sgt. Girish Kumar v. Union of India & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.21811/2018.

Submissions of the Learned Counsel of the Petitioner:

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned AFT has erred in adjourning the Review Application sine die only on the ground that a similar matter is pending adjudication before the Supreme Court. He submits that this amounts to the refusal of the learned AFT to exercise its jurisdiction on the basis of the law as it stands on the date it is called to adjudicate a matter. The learned counsel for the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 14446/2024 Page 3 of 8 petitioner submits that the learned AFT has to decide on the Review Applicat