HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 837/2025

1. The Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Defence, South Block , New Delhi 110011

2. The Principal Controller Of Defence Accounts (Pension), Allahabad (U.p.)

3. The Oic (Records), Aoc Records, Pin 900453, C/o 56 Apo ----Petitioners Versus Jc-223023X Ex Hony Sub Maj Mahendra Singh, H. No. D-160, Prem Nagar, Krishna Marg, Jhotwara, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Manjeet Kaur, Advocate assisted by Ms. Taruna Singh, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yogendra Singh, Advocate.

Mr. Aslam Khan, Advocate.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

Order

16/03/2026

1. This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners (hereinafter to be referred as ‘department’) challenging the order dated 28.08.2023 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Tribunal’) whereby the Original Application filed on behalf of the respondent (hereinafter to be referred as ‘employee’) was allowed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the employee sustained foot (crushed) injury, when he was in service as Naib Subedar and he retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation in the year 2003.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim of the employee for disability pension was rejected and his request for the department. Being aggrieved of the said decision, the employee filed an original application before the Tribunal which was allowed by the Tribunal directing the department to constitute Re-assessment Medical Board for the ascertainment of the disability with regard to injury sustained by the employee.

4. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the department has preferred this writ petition.

5. Counsel for the department submits that the Tribunal has committed error in directing the department to constitute Re- assessment Medical Board and the counsel relied upon Clause 54 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 which reads as under:

“54. An officer who had retired (otherwise than at his own request or in any of the circumstances specified in regulation 16) on a retiring pension/gratuity, but who within a period of seven years from the date of retirement is found to be suffering from a disease which accepted as attributable to his or her military service, may, at the discretion of the President, be granted in addition to his or her retiring pension/gratuity, a disability element at the appropriate rate with effect from such date, as the President may decide in the circumstance of the case.”

6. Counsel further relied upon the Clause 10 of Entitlement Rules to Casualty Pensionary Awards to the Armed Forces Personnel, 1982 which reads as under:

“10. Cases in which a disease did not actually lead to the member’s discharge from service but arose within ten years thereafter, may be recognised as attributable to service if it can be established medically that the disability is a delayed manifestation of a pathological process set in motion by service conditions obtaining prior to discharge and that if the disability had been manifest at the time of discharge the individual would have been invalided out of service on this account.”

7. Counsel for the department further submits that the employee for the first time on 28.03.2016 filed an application in the department with regard to furnishing some documents under the RTI Act from them and within the time limit of ten years, the employee has never made any request to the department for the writ petition.

8. Counsel for the employee opposed the submissions made on behalf of the counsel for the department and submits that the employee has submitted an application for constituting Re- assessment Medical Board (Annexure—A7) on 10.10.2011 and the said application was submitted by the employee within the prescribed limitation period of ten years as the employee retired from the service in