Cdr. Siddharth Sharma, IN v. CDR AK Srivastava (Retd.)

1. This petition has been filed challenging the Impugned Order dated 27.02.2023 passed by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (in short, ‘AFT’) in OA 1483/2021, titled CDR AK Srivastava (Retd) v. Union of India and Ors. allowing the Original Application filed by the respondent and granting the reliefs as under:

@ 6% p.a. till the actual date of payment.”

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned AFT has wrongly placed reliance on the Judgments of the Supreme Court in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India & Ors., 2013 (7) SCC 316 and in Union of India & Ors. v. Ram Avtar, 2014 SCC OnLine SC 1761, in granting the relief to the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a considered decision had been made by the Competent Authority, denying the disability pension to the respondent, and the said decision has been interfered with by the learned AFT without appreciating the facts of the present case.

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent, who appeared on advance notice, submits that the consistent medical opinion on the case of the respondent was that the disability suffered by the respondent was aggravated by naval service. The said opinion of experts was interfered with only on the financial advice and without any medical opinion to the contrary.

4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

5. It is an admitted case of the parties that the respondent was enrolled as Sailor in the Indian Navy on 06.07.1981. He was commissioned as Sub-Lieutenant in the Indian Navy on 01.04.1995. In the Review Medical Board held on 14.09.2017, the Medical Board opined as under:

6. However, in spite of the above opinion, the claim of the respondent for the disability pension in terms of paragraph 43 Chapter 6 of the Guide to Medical officers (Military Pensions), 2002, as amended in 2008, was rejected by the petitioner by a letter dated 12.12.2019, observing as under:

7. From a reading of the above, it would be apparent that the claim of the respondent was not rejected on any medical opinion but merely on an objection raised by the Financial Authority. It is not shown to us whether the Financial Authority was guided by any medical opinion which was contrary to the opinion of the Review Medical Board referred hereinabove. In fact, the learned counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention to an earlier opinion of the Medical Board dated 14.01.2016 as well, which also records as under:

8. There were, therefore, consistent medical opinion that the disability suffered by the respondent had been aggravated by the service conditions. The said medical opinions were ignored by the Financial Authority without any cogent material and the claim of the respondent was rejected only for financial considerations, which cannot be accepted.

9. We are dismayed with the manner in which the claim of the respondent has been dealt with. This mistake of the petitioner was not realised at the stage when the respondent filed its First Appeal, which was rejected by an Order dated 06.10.2020, or at the stage of decision of his Second Appeal, which was decided vide Order dated 07.06.2021, both by cryptic and unreasoned Orders and without making any reference to the opinion of the Medical Boards. The mistake was again not realised when the respondent was forced to challenge the above decision before the learned AFT, and in fact, the petitioner has challenged the decision of the learned AFT before this Court in a casual manner inter alia contending that the Medical Board opinion has been ignored by the learned AFT.

10. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the present petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed with cost quantified at Rs.50,000/to be paid by the petitioners to the respondent within a period of four weeks from today.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J SHALINDER KAUR, J NOVEMBER 12, 2024/Arya/VS Click here to check corrigendum, if any