Case Note & Summary
The Union of India filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, challenging the order dated 03.02.2023 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench at Chennai in O.A.No.48 of 2022. The Tribunal had allowed the original application filed by the second respondent, Col Chellappa (Retd), granting him disability element of pension at 30% with effect from 31.05.2013 for life, duly broad-banded to 50%, along with arrears. The second respondent was commissioned in the Indian Army on 01.10.1988 and superannuated on 31.05.2013 after rendering 36 years, 7 months and 24 days of service. He was in receipt of service pension. He was medically fit until November 2011, when he was diagnosed with primary hypothyroidism and diabetes mellitus type 2 at MH Shillong and downgraded to low medical category S1H1A1P2E1. He superannuated in this low medical category. The core legal issue was whether the second respondent was eligible to claim disability element of pension in addition to service pension under Regulation 37 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, given that he retired on attaining the prescribed age of superannuation and was not invalided out of service on medical grounds. The Union of India, represented by Major Prashanth K. Mukundan, argued that the second respondent’s case did not satisfy the eligibility criteria stipulated in Regulation 37, and therefore his claim was rightly rejected. The Union contended that the Tribunal had failed to consider this eligibility criteria. The second respondent, though served, did not appear before the High Court. The judgment, as provided, does not include the final determination by the High Court; it only sets out the background, the regulation’s text, and the arguments. The outcome and reasoning remain unstated in the available text.
Issue of Consideration
Whether an officer who retires on superannuation and is in low medical category is eligible for disability element of pension under Regulation 37 of the Pension Regulations for the Army?
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (02) 104
S.M.Subramaniam, K.Rajasekar
For Petitioners: Major Prashanth K.Mukundan; For Respondents: No appearance for R2, R1-Tribunal
1. The Union of India, represented by the Secretary, DESW Government of India, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi; 2. The Chief of the Army Staff, Integrated HQ of MoD (Army), South Block, New Delhi; 3. Officers Record Room, Adjutant Generals Branch IHQ MOD, West Block RK Puram, New Delhi; 4. Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension), Draupadi Ghat Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh
1. The Registrar, Armed Forces Tribunal, Rudra Road, St.Thomas Mount, Chennai; 2. Col Chellappa (Retd), S/o late SK Sundaram Pillai
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash an order of the Armed Forces Tribunal granting disability element of pension to a retired Army officer.
Remedy Sought
Union of India sought quashing of the Armed Forces Tribunal's order dated 03.02.2023 in OA No.48 of 2022, which allowed the disability element of pension to the second respondent.
Filing Reason
The Union of India contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the eligibility criteria under Regulation 37 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, and the officer was not entitled to disability element as he retired on superannuation.
Previous Decisions
The Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench at Chennai, in OA No.48 of 2022 dated 03.02.2023, allowed the original application filed by the second respondent, granting disability element of pension at 30% w.e.f. 31.05.2013 for life duly broad-banded to 50% along with arrears.
Issues
Whether an officer who retires on superannuation and is in low medical category is eligible for disability element of pension under Regulation 37 of the Pension Regulations for the Army?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the second respondent's case does not fall under the eligibility criteria of Regulation 37 and therefore his claim was rightly rejected; the Tribunal overlooked the criteria.
Second respondent did not appear to present arguments.
Judgment Excerpts
The second respondent instituted original application claiming disability element of pension @ 30% w.e.f. 31.05.2013 for life duly broad banded to 50% along with arrears. (Para 3)
Regulation 37 of the Pension Regulations for the Army denotes disability element in addition to retiring pension to officer retired on attaining the prescribed age of retirement. (Para 7)
Procedural History
The second respondent filed Original Application No.48 of 2022 before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench at Chennai, seeking disability element of pension. The Tribunal allowed the application on 03.02.2023. The Union of India filed the present writ petition challenging the Tribunal's order.
Acts & Sections
- Pension Regulations for the Army: Regulation 37
- Constitution of India: Article 226
