UNION OF INDIA & Ors. v. EX NK RANJIT KUMAR RAY

Through: Mr.Ajit Kumar Pathak, SPC Date of decision: 18.03.2025 with Mr.Alok Vajpayee & Ms.Akriti Pathak, Adv. Major Anish Muralidhar, Army. versus EX NK RANJIT KUMAR RAY .....Respondent Through: Mr.Raj Kumar & Mr.Devendra Kumar, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL) CM APPL. 69101/2024 (Exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 16400/2024 & CM APPL. 69102/2024 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the Order dated 16.02.2024 passed by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No.1288/2023 titled Ex Nk Ranjit Kumar Ray v. Union of India & Ors., whereby the said Original Application filed by the respondent herein was allowed with the following directions: Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 16400/2024 Digitally Signed By:RENUKA NEGI Signing Date:25.03.2025 19:57:05

15. Therefore, in view of our analysis, the OA is allowed and Respondents are directed to grant benefit of disability element of pension @ 60% for life, rounded off to 75% in view of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India versus Ram Avtar (supra) from the date of discharge i.e. 31.08.2022. The arrears shall be disbursed to the applicant within four months of receipt of this order failing which it shall earn interest @ 6% p.a. till the actual date of payment.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Tribunal has wrongly relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India & Ors., (2013) 7 SCC 316, to allow the Original Application filed by the respondent herein, without appreciating that the medical condition of the respondent, that is, ‘Chronic Kidney Disease (igA Nephropathy) (N18.9)’ could have been caused by various reasons that may not be attributable to the conditions of service. He submits that the same has also been recorded by the Release Medical Board. He submits that the opinion of the Medical Board cannot be interfered with by the learned Tribunal.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent draws our attention to the Re-classification Medical Board Proceedings dated

14.12.2015, which had categorically recorded that the condition suffered by the respondent could be stated to be attributable to military service.