Indian Military Veterans
CHENNAI: Coming to the rescue of a retired colonel, the southern bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal has directed the Army to provide him disability pension.
Though the disability of Col (retd) V Mukesh Kumar was attributable to his service and was aggravated by it, the Army had refused to provide him the retirement benefit, citing a rule that an officer who retired voluntarily was not eligible to disability pension.
Kumar informed the tribunal that he had joined the Army's Madras Regiment in 1977 as a commissioned officer. During his tenure, he suffered from hypertension because of being posted at a high altitude area in Arunachal Pradesh. Subsequent postings to the Siachen Glacier and Kupwara in Jammu and Kashmir aggravated his condition, he said.
"Stress and strain of field and military service in the infantry" in high altitude zones caused the condition, Kumar said. He opted for voluntary retirement in May, 2005. The medical board of the Army assessed his disability level at 30% at the time of his retirement. It noted that the hypertension he suffered had been aggravated by military service. The government announced, meanwhile, that those armed forces personnel who retire prematurely on or after January 1, 2006, would be entitled to disability pension if the disability was attributable to or aggravated by military service. A subsequent verdict of the principal bench of AFT had made the government policy applicable to personnel who retired prior to January 1, 2006. Despite this, the Army refused to grant him disability pension, Kumar said.
In its counter, the Army said according to its pension regulations an officer who retired voluntarily was not eligible to disability pension. Also, it said, the government order was applicable only to personnel below the rank of officer and not to officers.
The bench of judicial member V Periya Karuppiah and administrative member K Surendra Nath said a government notification of August 2010 said if a pre-2006 retiree below the rank of officer filed a claim for disability pension denied because of premature retirement, the case would not be contested and processed for government sanction. However, the principal bench of the tribunal had struck down the government notification, stating that it created an "distinction" between officers and personnel below the rank of officer and "was a ploy" to not pay officers disability pension.
According to the precedent, denial of disability pension was "erroneous" and "non-sustainable", the bench said, directing the Army to provide him 30% disability pension for life from January 1, 2006.
Source:Please click here
CHENNAI: Coming to the rescue of a retired colonel, the southern bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal has directed the Army to provide him disability pension.
Though the disability of Col (retd) V Mukesh Kumar was attributable to his service and was aggravated by it, the Army had refused to provide him the retirement benefit, citing a rule that an officer who retired voluntarily was not eligible to disability pension.
Kumar informed the tribunal that he had joined the Army's Madras Regiment in 1977 as a commissioned officer. During his tenure, he suffered from hypertension because of being posted at a high altitude area in Arunachal Pradesh. Subsequent postings to the Siachen Glacier and Kupwara in Jammu and Kashmir aggravated his condition, he said.
"Stress and strain of field and military service in the infantry" in high altitude zones caused the condition, Kumar said. He opted for voluntary retirement in May, 2005. The medical board of the Army assessed his disability level at 30% at the time of his retirement. It noted that the hypertension he suffered had been aggravated by military service. The government announced, meanwhile, that those armed forces personnel who retire prematurely on or after January 1, 2006, would be entitled to disability pension if the disability was attributable to or aggravated by military service. A subsequent verdict of the principal bench of AFT had made the government policy applicable to personnel who retired prior to January 1, 2006. Despite this, the Army refused to grant him disability pension, Kumar said.
In its counter, the Army said according to its pension regulations an officer who retired voluntarily was not eligible to disability pension. Also, it said, the government order was applicable only to personnel below the rank of officer and not to officers.
The bench of judicial member V Periya Karuppiah and administrative member K Surendra Nath said a government notification of August 2010 said if a pre-2006 retiree below the rank of officer filed a claim for disability pension denied because of premature retirement, the case would not be contested and processed for government sanction. However, the principal bench of the tribunal had struck down the government notification, stating that it created an "distinction" between officers and personnel below the rank of officer and "was a ploy" to not pay officers disability pension.
According to the precedent, denial of disability pension was "erroneous" and "non-sustainable", the bench said, directing the Army to provide him 30% disability pension for life from January 1, 2006.
Source:Please click here
Exp:55%
No comments:
Post a Comment
Indian Military Veterans Viewers, ..
Each of you is part of the Indian Military Veterans message.
We kindly request you to make healthy use of this section which welcomes the freedom of expression of the readers.
Note:
1. The comments posted here are the readers' own comments. Veterans news is not responsible for this in any way.
2. The Academic Committee has the full right to reject, reduce or censor opinion.
3. Personal attacks, rude words, comments that are not relevant to the work will be removed
4. We kindly ask you to post a comment using their name and the correct email address.
- INDIAN MILITARY VETERANS- ADMIN