COURT No.2 ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI 22. OA 1480/2018 Maj Amar Singh Chandel (Retd.) seen Applicant VERSUS Union of India and Ors. .... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. S S Pandey, Advocate For Respondents: Mr. Avdhesh Kumar Singh, Advocate CORAM HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA, MEMBER (J) HON’BLE REAR ADMIRAL DHIREN VIG, MEMBER (A) ORDER 01.09.2023 L. The applicant vide the present OA 1480/2018 makes the following prayers:- “(a) Call for the records including the RMB proceedings as well as the findings and opinion as approved by the competent authority alongwith Policy dated 29.09.2009 based on which the Respondents in most illegal manner denied the claim of the Applicant for War Injury Pension in respect of disability(i) BIL SNHL(Acoustic trauma) and (ii) PIVD L4/5 vide their order dated 27.03.2012 thereafter quash all such orders including the Policy to the extent it only entitles the Applicant the Disability element without including the service element as part of Disability Pension/War Injury Pension. (b) Call for the records based on which the Respondents vide order dated 01.02.2018 denied the Applicant the status of Ex-Serviceman and thereafter quash the same. (c) Direct the Respondents to process the claim of War Injury Pension including Service Element to the Applicant in respect of his disability PIVD L4/5 along with arrears with an interest @18% per annum by applying the deemed invalidation principle as applied for Broad Banding.(d) Direct the Respondents to extend the benefits for the date of release of the Applicant alongwith arrears of the disability pension with interest @18% p.a. (e) Issue such other order/direction as may be deemed appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case.” Be A submission is made on behalf of the respondents that OA 1423/2017 was filed by the applicant previously and that the prayer made through the present OA was not made and thus the present proceedings are barred by the Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC, 1908, as annexed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the OA 1423/2017 that the applicant had filed, was an OA seeking the grant of the broadbanding of the disability element of pension which the applicant was getting at the rate of 30% on the basis of the Govt. notification dated 31.01.2001 as well as the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in UOI & Ors. Vs Ramavtar in Civil Appeal No. 418/2012 dated 10.12.2014 and that vide order dated 28.08.2017 in OA 1423/2017, it was observed to the effect that in as much as it was an undisputed effect that the applicant was getting disability element of pension @30%, the respondents thus were directed to broadband his disability element of pension to 50%, subject to the verification by the respondents with the arrears being restricted to three years prior to filing of the OA i.e. 17.08.2017. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no ostensible reasons can be put forth as to why the prayer made through the present OA was not made in OA 1423/2017 but submits to the effect that theprayer made by the applicant is on the premise of seeking the grant of the prayer in view of the beneficial legislations and provisions to disabled soldiers. In relation to the said aspect, it is essential to observe that Section-23(1) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, provides to the effect:- “23. Procedure and powers of the Tribunal-(1) The Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and subject to the other provisions of this Act and any rules made thereunder, the Tribunal shall have the power to lay down and regulate its own procedure including the fixing of place and time of its inquiry and deciding whether to sit in public or in camera.” Thus this Tribunal is not expressly bound by the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as amended and is to be guided