ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, CHENNAI OANo ...

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
O.A.No.57 of 2012
Tuesday, the 18 th day of September 2012
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRIKANT TRIPATHI
(MEMBER-JUDICIAL)
AND
THE HON’BLE LT GEN (RETD) ANAND MOHAN VERMA
(MEMBER – ADMINISTRATIVE)
Ex-JWO P.Edward Durai
Service No.259988-T
S/o Late M.Papu
No.37, 3 rd Street, Ellaiamman Nagar
Muthapudupet, IAF Avadi
Chennai-600 055 … Applicant
By Legal Practitioners: M/s M.K.Sikdar
and S.Biju, Counsels
Vs.
1.Union of India represented by
Ministry of Defence, Rep by the Chief Air Staff,
Air Headquarters, Vayu Bhavan,
New Delhi-110 011
2.The DPA
Air Headquarters,
Vayu Bhavan, New Delhi-110 106
3.The Air Officer Commanding
Air Force Record Office,
Subroto Park, New Delhi-110010 ... Respondents
By Shri B.Shanthakumar, SPC (Govt. Advocate for Respondents).
ORDER
(Order of the Tribunal made by
Hon’ble Justice Shrikant Tripathi, Member-Judicial)
1. Heard the counsel for the applicant and for the respondents
and perused the record.
O.A.57 of 2012 1

2. The applicant Ex-JWO P.Edward Durai has filed the instant
petition under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, for the
disability pension and also for quashing of the opinion of the Release
Medical Board.
3. The applicant was enrolled in the Indian Air Force as Airman
on 17 th October, 1963 and rose upto the rank of Junior Warrant Officer
(JWO) and rendered about 23 years of qualifying service. The applicant
was discharged from the Air Force on 31 st August, 1986 on fulfilment of
his normal tenure with 20% disability assessed by the Medical Board but
was not granted disability pension on the ground that the disability was
not attributable to or aggravated by the military service. The applicant’s
claim for the disability pension was rejected by the letter dated 15 th April,
1987 (Annexure-I to the OA). Against the rejection order dated 15 th April,
1987 the applicant preferred an appeal which was dismissed. The
dismissal order was communicated to the applicant vide order dated
9.1.1991 (Annexure-VI to the OA). Thereafter, the applicant preferred a
second appeal, allegedly barred by time, before the second appellate
authority which is still pending and the applicant has been required to
furnish explanations for the delay.
4. With the consent of the learned counsels for both the parties
the present matter is being disposed finally at the admission stage. The
learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had already
submitted to the second appellate authority adequate explanations for the
delay vide his letter dated 15 th December, 2011 (Annexure-IX to the OA)
O.A.57 of 2012 2

ut the second appellate authority instead of considering the second
appeal on merit had been insisting for submission of the explanations of
the delay. It was further submitted that when the explanations had
already been furnished vide letter dated 15 th December, 2011, the second
appellate authority was not justified in ignoring the explanations and
requiring the applicant to furnish further explanations.
5. In paragraph 2 of the said letter dated 15-12-2011, the
applicant has stated that the delay crept in submitting the second appeal
was neither wilful nor wanton but occurred due to the reason that there
was no instruction to file the second appeal in the letter dated 9 th January,
1991 (Annexure-VI to the OA) given by the first appellate authority
regarding rejection of the first appeal. Therefore, the learned counsel for
the applicant submitted that the applicant, being not well-versed in law
was justified in filing the second appeal after coming to know that there
was a provision for the second appeal.
6. The applicant has raised various grounds to challenge the
order of the first appellate authority, therefore, the second appellate
authority was expected to consider the appeal on merit instead of insisting
upon the explanations for the delay. In our view, it would be appropriate
to direct the second appellate authority to consider the second appeal
preferred by the appellant on merit and pass a appropriate order thereon.
7. The second appellate authority is, therefore, directed to
decide the applicant’s second appeal within two months from today and
pass a reasoned order thereon without attaching any significance to the
O.A.57 of 2012 3

question of limitation and communicate the same to the appellant within
two weeks thereafter. In case the request for disability pension is not
accepted by the second appellate authority, it will be open to the applicant
to file another petition before this Tribunal against that order.
8. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of.
9. Costs easy. Inform.
Sd/-
JUSTICE SHRIKANT TRIPATHI
(MEMBER-JUDICIAL)
O.A.57 of 2012 4
Sd/-
Lt. GEN (RETD) ANAND MOHAN VERMA
(MEMBER – ADMINISTRATIVE)
18.9.2012
//TRUE COPY//
To,
1.Union of India represented by
Ministry of Defence, Rep by the Chief Air Staff,
Air Headquarters, Vayu Bhavan,
New Delhi-110 011
2.The DPA
Air Headquarters,
Vayu Bhavan, New Delhi-110 106
3.The Air Officer Commanding
Air Force Record Office,
Subroto Park, New Delhi-110010
4.M/s M.K.Sikdar and S.Biju, Counsels for the Applicant
5. Shri B.Shanthakumar, SPC (Govt. Advocate for Respondents).
6. OIC Legal Cell, Air Force, Avadi, Chennai.
7. Library, AFT, Chennai.

O.A.57 of 2012 5
HONOURABLE JUSTICE
SHRIKANT TRIPATHI
(MEMBER-JUDICIAL)
AND
HONOURABLE LT GEN (RETD)
ANAND MOHAN VERMA
(MEMBER – ADMINISTRATIVE)
O.A.No.57 of 2012
18.09.2012