Dismissed

Radhakrishna Pillai.N v. Union of India

Kerala HC13 Jul 2011OP(AFT)/2240/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed an original petition challenging the Armed Forces Tribunal's order denying disability pension. The petitioner claimed his visual disability resulted from service in snowy Kashmir, but the Court found the Medical Board's finding of a degenerative process unrelated to service, which the Tribunal upheld, lacked merit.

What did the court decide?

The original petition challenging the refusal of disability pension is dismissed.

Radhakrishna Pillai.N Vs Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2011 / 22ND ASHADHA 1933

¶5

OP(AFT).No. 2240 of 2011(Z)

¶6

--------------------------OA.43/2010 of ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL,REGIONAL BENCH,KOCHI

¶7

PETITIONER

¶8

¶9

RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI.N., CHANGEL PADEETHETHIL HOUSE, THULAMPARAMPU NORTH.P.O., HARIPPAD. KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DIST, KERALA STATE.PIN-690514.

BY ADV. SRI.G.BENO

SMT.S.CHYTHANYA

RESPONDENTS:

UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SENA BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110105.

¶15

THE OFFICER IN CHARGE, ARTILLERY RECORDS, ARTILLERY CENTRE, NASIK ROAD CAMP-422102 MAHARASHTRA STATE, APSS-908802.

¶16

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ADJUTANT GENERAL'S BRANCH, ARMY HEAD QUARTERS, DHG.P.O., NEW DELHI-11.

¶17

ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA FOR R1-3

¶18

THIS OP (ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL - Art.227) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETTIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶21

P1: TRUE COPY OF RMB PROEEDINGS DT.22.6.90.

¶22

P2: TRUE COPY OF DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE DT.1.11.90.

¶23

P3: TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN 1ST APPEAL DT.7.2.08.

¶24

P4: TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN 2ND APPEAL DT.18.9.09.

¶25

P5: TRUE COPY OF O.A. 43/2010.

¶26

P6: TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT IN O.A. 43/10.

¶27

P7: TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN O.A. NO.43/2010.

¶28

TRUE COPY

¶29

P.S. TO JUDGE

¶30

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ.

¶31

.................................................................... O.P.(AFT) No.2240 of 2011

¶32

.................................................................... Dated this the 13th day of July, 2011.

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶35

The O.P. is filed challenging the order of the Armed Forces Tribunal declining to grant disability pension to the petitioner who is already a pensioner after 17 years' service in the Army. The petitioner was released from the Army on account of 20% medical disability which is attributable to vision. The case of the petitioner is that both his eyes were operated during service and the problem arose on account of his service in snowy area in Kashmir. However, it is seen that operation was held in 1979 and in 1980. However, petitioner retired only on 31.10.1990. Apparently the disability is a slow developing process and the same is certified by the Medical Board as on account of degenerative process and not connected with or arising from his service. All the authorities including the Tribunal held that the Medical Board's report is binding and there is nothing to prove that the disability is attributable to Military Service. Large number of Defence

¶36

¶37

personnel are serving in Leh and other high altitude areas where round the year there is snow. However, petitioner has no case that eye problem is a general problem among Service personnel and the same is attributable to service in snowy areas. We, therefore, do not find any

¶38

merit in the claim of the petitioner. The O.P. is accordingly dismissed.

¶39

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge

¶40

P.S.GOPINATHAN Judge

¶41

pms

Radhakrishna Pillai.N v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhakrishna Pillai.N v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Kerala Vs M/S.Hotel Prince

S. Ashok Kumar Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,Ekm &

Manakunnam Village Padasekhara Samraksha Vs State of Kerala

The Commissioner of Income Tax,Kozhikode Vs St.Thomas Adoration Convent,Manjakadavu

The Director (Hrd) & Others Vs Palmer

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Vs State of Kerala