IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL &

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.

TH THURSDAY, THE 29 DAY OF MAY 2025 / 8TH JYAISHTA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 8871 OF 2024 PETITIONER:

CRAFTSMAN SHAJILAL SD (EX NO. 14533887K AGED 62 YEARS, S/O LATE PK DAS, KURUMTHODATHU HOUSE EVOOR SOUTH, KEERIKAD PO ALAPPUZHA DIST, KERALA, PIN - 690508.

BY ADV SHRI.GYOTHISH CHANDRAN RESPONDENTS:

1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110011.

2 THE CHIEF OF THE ARMY STAFF, INTEGRATED HEAD QUARTERS (ARMY) SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110011.

3 OIC RECORDS, EME RECORDS, PIN-900 453, C/O 56 APO, PIN-900453.

4 PRINCIPAL CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS (PENSIONS OFFICE OF THE PCDA(P) DRAUPATIGARH, ALLAHABAD, PIN - 211014.

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

29.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

Muralee Krishna, J.

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the applicant in O.A. No.277 of 2022 on the file of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Kochi Bench (‘the Tribunal’ for short), challenging the order dated 12.12.2023, whereby the claim of the petitioner for invalid pension was dismissed.

2. The facts in brief which led to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: The petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army on 18.05.1979 and was invalided out of service on 05.02.1984 due to ‘Neurosis 300’ assessed at 20% for two years. The Medical Board assessed the disability as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. According to the petitioner, he was ineligible for invalid pension at the time of his invalidment due to the stipulation of 10 years minimum service period in Regulation 198 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, as existed at that time. But subsequently, the requirement of 10 years service period was relaxed vide Annexure A3, GOI (MOD) letter No.12(06)/2019/D (Pen/Pol) dated 16.07.2020 issued by the Government in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India v. P.A Thomas (SLP (C)No.20339 of 2011). The petitioner thereafter submitted a request dated 18.09.2022 for invalid pension and the same was denied for the reason that, as per Annexure A3, a cut-off date of 04.01.2019 is fixed for granting invalid pension. Therefore, the petitioner filed the above O.A. contending that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in D.S Nakara and others v. Union of India [(1983) 1 SCC 305) the cut-off date for granting invalid pension fixed as 04.01.2019 in Annexure A3 is illegal and arbitrary. However, the Tribunal dismissed the O.A.

3. Heard Sri.Gyothish Chandran, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri.T.C.Krisha, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India-in-Charge for the respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, granted invalid pension to the members of the Armed Forces invalided out of service before 04.01.2019. In support of his said contention, the learned counsel produced the order dated 03.07.2023 in O.A. No.2148 of 2019, order dated 18.12.2024 in OA No.2370 of 2024 and the order dated 06.02.2025 in O.A. No.

476 of 2015 of the Principal Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal, New Delhi. The learned counsel submitted that the order of the Principal Bench of the Tribunal still holds good and hence the respondents cannot take a different stand in the case of the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, the learned DSGI-in-Charge would submit that the Tribunal has correctly analysed the facts and reached to a right conclusion and no interference is needed by this Court exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. The petitioner enrolled in the Indian Army on 18.05.1979 and was invalided from service on 05.02.1984 due to ‘Neurosis 300’ assessed at 20% for two years. At the time of entering service, no disability w