Madras High Court
S.No.13938143 vs Union Of India on 7 March, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
2025:MHC:659
W.P.No.19238 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.03.2025
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
W.P.No.19238 of 2024
S.No.13938143
Ex Sep Pallikonda Sivappa .. Petitioner
-vs-
1. Union of India
represented by its Secretary
Government of India
Ministry of Defence
South Block, New Delhi 110 011
2. The Chief of Army Staff
Integrated Hqs of MoD (Army)
C/o 56 APO 900256
3. The Officer-in-Charge
Army Medical Corps Records
C/o 56 APO 900450
4. The Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension)
Draupadi Ghat
Allahabad (UP) – 211014 .. Respondents
____________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 06:14:57 pm )
W.P.No.19238 of 2024
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, by calling for the records
in respect of the impugned orders passed in O.A.No.108 of 2020 with
M.A.No.98 of 2020 dated 30th March 2022 and RA No.22/2022 in
O.A.No.108 of 2020 dated 17.06.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Armed Forces
Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chennai and quash the same and further
directing the 1st to 4th respondents to grant Disability Pension (Service
Element + Disability Element) to the petitioner w.e.f. 19th March 1983 for
life, with benefit of broad banding @ 75% w.e.f. 1st January 1996 with all
consequential benefits, as per Regulation 186(2) of Pension Regulations for
the Army, 1961 with all consequential benefits (or) in alternate to constitute
Re-survey Medical Board to assess present percentage of disability of the
petitioner with duration and grant Disability Pension (Service Element +
Disability Element) to the petitioner @ 20% or more as the case may be
with all consequential benefits.
For Petitioner :: Mr.M.K.Sikdar
For Respondents :: Mr.A.R.Sakthivel
Senior Panel Counsel
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.)
The writ on hand has been instituted by the original applicant before
the Armed Forces Tribunal aggrieved by the impugned orders.
2. The petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army on 29.08.1974 and
invalided out from service on 11.03.1983, after serving 8 years, 6 months
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 06:14:57 pm )
and 14 days of qualifying service. The Medical Board assessed the disability
due to Psychotic Depressive Reaction (Affective Psychosis) @ 60% for two
years and opined that the disability was aggravated by military service.
However, the claim of the petitioner for disability pension was rejected on
12.07.2019.
3. Mr.M.K.Sikdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
mainly contend that when the Medical Board opined that the disability was
aggravated by military service, then the authorities, who are not medical
experts, cannot adopt a contra opinion. The opinion of the Medical Board is
binding on the authorities, unless they refer the matter for review before the
Medical Board based on some other incriminating documents or the
authorities have other factors to establish their case. In all other
circumstances, the opinion of the Medical Board became final and to be
considered by the competent authorities. Thus, in the present case, the
differing view taken by the authorities contra to the opinion of the Medical
Board is untenable.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 06:14:57 pm )
4. Regarding the limitation as contemplated under Section 22 of the
Armed Forces Tribunal Act, undoubtedly the applications are to be
instituted within the time limit prescribed under Section 22 of the Act.
Pension no doubt is a continuing cause of action. However, the order of
rejection would provide a cause for filing an appeal or to approach the
Tribunal/Courts. In the present case, the claim of disability pension was
rejected long before and admittedly the writ petitioner has not approached
the appellate authority or the Armed Forces Tribunal during the relevant
point of time. Therefore, in normal circumstances, the Courts are bound to
reject the claim on the ground of limitation as contemplated under Section
22 of the Act.
5. But in the present case, this Court finds that the writ petitioner is
eligible for disability pension. When the aggrieved person approached the
High Court and the Court found that he is otherwise eligible for disability
pension, then it would be harsh on the part of the Court to reject the claim
merely on the ground of limitation. When the disability is ascertained by
the High Court in writ proceedings and when the claimant has served in
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 06:14:57 pm )
Indian Army, the benefit need not be denied merely on the ground of delay.
However, the said principle cannot be adopted in all cases nor this judgment
to be followed as precedent in the matter of determining the period of
limitation in accordance with Section 22 of the Act. The case on hand is an
exception, since the medical opinion was not considered by the competent
authorities. Considering these exceptional circumstances, this Court is
inclined to intervene.
6. In the case of Union of India and others v. Tarsem Singh, 2008
INSC 1369, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while granting relief, restricted the
arrears only for a period of three years from the date of filing of the original
application.
7. In view of the fact that the writ petitioner is found to be eligible for
disability pension, we are inclined to consider the present writ petition.
Accordingly, the impugned orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional
Bench, Chennai dated 30.03.2022 in O.A.No.108 of 2020 and 17.06.2022 in
R.A.No.22 of 2022 are set aside. The respondents are directed to settle the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 06:14:57 pm )
disability pension to the writ petitioner and pay the arrears for a period of
three years from the date of filing of the original application, within a period
of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ
petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. No costs.
Index : yes (S.M.S.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.)
Neutral citation : yes 07.03.2025
ss
To
1. The Secretary to Union of India
Ministry of Defence
South Block, New Delhi 110 011
2. The Chief of Army Staff
Integrated Hqs of MoD (Army)
C/o 56 APO 900256
3. The Officer-in-Charge
Army Medical Corps Records
C/o 56 APO 900450
4. The Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension)
Draupadi Ghat
Allahabad (UP) – 211014
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 06:14:57 pm )
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
AND
K.RAJASEKAR,J.
ss
07.03.2025
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 06:14:57 pm )
