Court Directs AFT to Hear Review Application on Disability Pension Despite Pending Supreme Court Appeal.


06 December 2024 Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law   |   Armed Forces Tribunal >> Miscellaneous  

In Maj. (Retd.) Dr. Rajesh Kumar Bhardwaj v/s Union Of India Through Its Secretary Ministry Of Defence & Others., the petitioner challenged an order dated 18.05.2022 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) in a review application (RA No.21/2016) concerning his claim for the service element of his disability pension. The AFT had deferred the adjudication of his review application sine die, awaiting the outcome of a pending appeal before the Supreme Court in the case of Ex Sgt. Girish Kumar v. Union of India (Civil Appeal Diary No. 21811/2018).

The petitioner, who had retired from the Indian Army in 1997 after serving in hazardous conditions, had sustained injuries during his service and was placed in a low medical category. His disability pension claim was initially rejected, but later, the disability element of his pension was granted, while the service element was denied. This led to the filing of his Original Application (OA No.556/2014), which was dismissed by the AFT in 2016.


 

 

The petitioner then filed the review application (RA No.21/2016), which was adjourned indefinitely by the AFT due to the pending appeal in the Girish Kumar case, which dealt with a different aspect of disability pension. The petitioner argued that the AFT’s decision to adjourn the case was wrong and cited Supreme Court judgments to support his claim that the AFT should adjudicate based on the law as it stands today.

The respondents, however, supported the AFT's decision to await the Supreme Court’s judgment, given the similar issues in the pending appeal. The Court analyzed the situation and concluded that the AFT should not have deferred the review application merely due to the pendency of a similar issue in the Supreme Court. The Court emphasized that unless specifically directed by the Supreme Court, judicial bodies must proceed with cases based on the law as it stands.

The petition was disposed of with the direction that the petitioner could move the AFT for an early hearing of his review application, without waiting for the outcome of the pending Supreme Court case.