Kerala High Court
Maheen A, (No. Ex-Nk 2587119-M) vs Union Of India on 21 May, 2025
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
WP(C) NO. 30253 OF 2023 1 2025:KER:36699
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 21
ST DAY OF MAY 2025 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 30253 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.07.2023 IN OA NO.66 OF 2021 OF
ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, KOCHI
PETITIONER/APPLICANT IN O.A.:
MAHEEN A, (NO. EX-NK 2587119-M),
AGED 56 YEARS,
S/O ABDUL KHADIR, MADRAS REGIMENT, WELLINGTON,
NILGIRIS RESIDING AT HALEENA MANZIL, TC 17/967(2),
NEAR SBT HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPURA, TRIVANDRUM, PIN -
695012.
BY ADVS.
B.HARISH KUMAR
ANJALY JOSEPH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN O.A.:
1 UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (DEFENCE),
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110011.
2 THE SENIOR RECORDS OFFICER,
MADRAS REGIMENT, WELLINGTON NILGIRIS, PIN - 643231.
3 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, CONTROLLER OF DEFENSE ACCOUNTS,
(PENSION), ALLAHABAD, U. P, PIN - 211014.
WP(C) NO. 30253 OF 2023 2 2025:KER:36699
BY ADVS.
S. BIJU
C.DINESH,CGC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
21.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 30253 OF 2023 3 2025:KER:36699
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India by the applicant in O.A No.66 of 2021
before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi, ('the
Tribunal' for short) against the order dated 19.07.2023 passed
by the Tribunal, whereby the claim of the petitioner for disability
pension was rejected.
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 as a Sepoy
on 29.10.1983, and was invalided out from service on medical
ground on 01.07.1999 after rendering 15 years, 8 months and 2
days of service. According to the petitioner, while working in
the Army, he had availed leave from 02.01.1996 to 10.03.1996
and while on leave, he met with a road traffic accident on
05.03.1996 and was subjected to amputation of the right knee.
The Release Medical Board, after thorough examination, declared
that his disability is attributable to service, and the said disability
was assessed at 70% for two years. Consequently, he was
placed in low medical category. The claim of the petitioner for
WP(C) NO. 30253 OF 2023 4 2025:KER:36699
disability pension was rejected by the 3rd respondent, stating
that the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by
military service. The aggrieved petitioner preferred an appeal
before the Appellate Authority and it was also rejected.
Thereafter, he approached the Tribunal with the above OA .
3. The Tribunal, based on a report filed by the Court of
Enquiry, found that the injury suffered by the petitioner/applicant
was not attributable to military service since it was caused while
he was returning home after shopping from Poojappura and
rejected the claim of the petitioner.
4. Heard Sri.Harish Kumar B, the learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri. C.Dinesh, the learned Central Government
Counsel for the respondents.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner suffered the accident while he was returning
after procuring a train ticket to join his workplace, and hence it
was an act preparatory to rejoining duty. He was on authorised
casual leave, and hence he is entitled to disability pension. The
learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in
Madan Singh Shekhawat v. Union of India [(1999) 6 SCC
459] in support of his argument regarding the entitlement of the
WP(C) NO. 30253 OF 2023 5 2025:KER:36699
petitioner for disability pension, if the injury was caused while he
was on authorised casual leave.
6. On the other hand, the learned Central Government
Counsel argued that the injury was caused to the petitioner while
returning from a market to his house and hence cannot be
claimed as attributable to or aggravated by military service.
7. There is no dispute on the point that the petitioner
joined the Indian Army as a Sepoy on 29.10.1983 and was
invalided on 01.07.1999. It is also not in dispute that he was on
authorised leave from 02.01.1996 till 10.03.1996 and was met
with an accident on 05.03.1996. By accident, he suffered
amputation of his right knee and disability was assessed as a
Traumatic Amputation (Rt) knee and disability was assessed at
70% for two years. In Madan Singh Shekhawat [(1999) 6
SCC 459] in the case of a disability caused by an accident while
travelling to his home station on authorised casual leave by the
appellant therein, the Apex Court held that a person is also
deemed to be on duty during the period of participation in
recreation organised or permitted by service authorities and of
travelling in a body or singly under organised arrangements. A
person is also considered to be on duty when proceeding to his
WP(C) NO. 30253 OF 2023 6 2025:KER:36699
leave station or returning to his duty from his leave station at
public expense. According to the petitioner, he suffered injury
while returning home after booking a train ticket with a view to
joining his workplace. While considering the fact that the
petitioner had obtained casual leave till 10.03.1996, the claim of
the petitioner is probable. Except the so-called self-destructive
statement claimed as given to the Enquiry Officer, there is no
material placed before the Tribunal to say the aforementioned
claim of the petitioner is incorrect. Therefore, it can be treated
that the petitioner sustained injury while travelling preparatory
to joining his duty. Moreover, The High Court of Punjab and
Haryana in the matter of Union of India and others v.
Khushbash Singh [Manu/PH/4147/2010] held that any
accident, however remotely connected and that is not
inconsistent with military service such as when a person is
returning from hospital or doing normal activities of a military
person, would still be taken as a disability attributable to military
service. In such circumstances, the petitioner is entitled for
disability pension and the Tribunal has failed to properly
appreciate the facts.
WP(C) NO. 30253 OF 2023 7 2025:KER:36699
8. The Release Medical Board, after thorough
examination, assessed the disability of the petitioner at 70% for
two years. Admittedly, the Government had come out with a
notification dated 31.01.2001 prescribing the table to grant the
benefit of rounding off. Paragraph 7.2 in the said notification is
extracted herein below for clarity:
"7.2 Where an Armed Forces Personnel is invalided out
under circumstances mentioned in Para 4.1 above, the
extent of disability or functional incapacity shall be
determined in the following manner for the purposes of
computing the disability element:
Percentage of disability as Percentage to be reckoned for
assessed by invaliding computing of disability element
medical board
Between 76 and 100 100"
9. It is worth to note that in the judgment dated
28.11.2019 in Civil Appeal No.5970 of 2019 in the matter of
Commander Rakesh Pande v. Union of India and others,
the Apex Court by noting paragraph 7 of the letter dated
07.02.2001 of Government of India which dealt with the
WP(C) NO. 30253 OF 2023 8 2025:KER:36699
modalities for implementation of the recommendations of the 5 th
Central Pay Commission which recommends that no periodical
review by the Resurvey Medical Board shall be held for
reassessment of disabilities, held that in the case of disabilities
adjudicated as being of permanent nature, the decision once
arrived at will be for life unless the individual himself requests for
a review. In that case, the Apex Court took the disability of
Diabetes Mellitus (NIDDM) and hyperlipidaemia as a disability of
20% for 5 years assessed by the Release Medical Board as one
for life.
10. As far as payment of arrears of pension is concerned, in
Union of India v. Tarsem Singh [(2008) 8 SCC 648] the
Apex Court held thus:
"To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim
will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where
remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation
(where remedy is sought by an application to the
Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said
rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a
service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief
can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking
remedy, with reference to the date on which the
continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong
creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an
exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of
WP(C) NO. 30253 OF 2023 9 2025:KER:36699
any order or administrative decision which related to or
affected several others also, and if the reopening of the
issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then
the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue
relates to payment or refixation of pay or pension, relief
may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the
rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues
relating to seniority or promotion etc., affecting others,
delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches /
limitation will be applied. In so far as the consequential
relief of recovery of arrears for a past period, the
principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will
apply. As a consequence, High Courts will restrict the
consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period
of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ
petition". [Emphasis supplied]
11. The dictum in Tarsem Singh [(2008) 8 SCC 648] is
reiterated by the Apex Court in the order dated 06.08.2024 in
Civil Appeal Nos. 1320-1321 of 2019 in the matter of
Ex.CPL.Ranganathan Nair v. Union of India & Ors and in the
judgment dated 07.05.2025 in Civil Appeal No.998 of 2025 in the
matter of Rajumon T.M v. Union of India & Ors.
12. In view of the discussion made above, we find that the
petitioner is entitled for the disability element of pension for life,
though the Release Medical Board assessed it as for two years.
WP(C) NO. 30253 OF 2023 10 2025:KER:36699
In the result, the respondents are directed to issue a
corrigendum PPO granting disability element of pension to the
petitioner at 100% for life, with arrears for a period of three
years prior to the filing of the original application before the
Tribunal, at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment,
failing which the unpaid arrears would carry interest at 7% per
annum. The parties are directed to bear their respective costs.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
DSV/-
WP(C) NO. 30253 OF 2023 11 2025:KER:36699
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30253/2023
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION
O.A. NO. 66/2021 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES A1 TO
A6 AND DELAY PETITION AS M.A. NO. 60/2021
DATED 21/02/2021.
Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF DISABILITY / HANDICAP
CERTIFICATE DATED 20-07-1998 ISSUED TO
APPLICANT.
Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF DISCHARGE BOOK DATED 30-6-
1999 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PENSION PAYMENT ORDER
DATED 17-11-1999 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
Annexure A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST APPEAL SUBMITTED
BEFORE THE HONORABLE DEFENCE MINISTER DATED
28-09-2001.
AnnexureA5 A TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND APPEAL DATED 16-11-
2020 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Annexure A6 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 03-02-
2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT DATED
16/05/2023 ALONG WITH ANNEXURE R1 TO R5
Annexure R1 COPY OF STATEMENT OF THE APPLICANT IN THE
COURT OF INQUIRY
Annexure R2 COPY OF INVALID MEDICAL BOARD AT MILITARY
HOSPITAL, WELLINGTON DATED 21-5-1999
Annexure R3 COPY OF PCD A(P), ALLAHABAD LETTER NO. G-
3/59/01/1/2000DATED 14-5-2000
Annexure R4 COPY OF GOVERNMENT OF INDIA , MINISTRY OF
DEFENCE (ARMY) LETTER NO.7(1372)/2000/D
(PEN/A AND AC) DATED 17 -9-2001
Annexure R5 COPY OF RECORD OFFICE LETTER
NO.2587119/DP/53/PG-3 DATED 22-10-2001
WP(C) NO. 30253 OF 2023 12 2025:KER:36699
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/07/2023
IN O.A. NO.66/2021 & M.A.NO.60/2021 PASSED
BY THE ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL REGIONAL
BENCH, KOCHI
