[2025:RJ-JP:9323-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1747/2025 Ex Sep Mahavir Singh S/o Shri Hardayal Singh, R/o Village Sardarpura, Post Hamir Was, District Churu Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. Uoi, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Defense, South Block, Govt. Of India, New Delhi-110 011 2. The Pcda (P), Prayagraj, Up-211014 3. The Oic Records, The Jat Regiment, Bareilly-243001 (Up) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Anjali Minocha with Ms. Sunita Sinwar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raghav Sharma on behalf of Mr. Samit Bishnoi Major Srishti Arora, OIC, Legal Cell is present in person HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 04/03/2025 (PER MR. BHUWAN GOYAL, J.) 1. By way of instant writ petition, a challenge has been laid to the order dated 06.09.2024 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Jaipur in OA No. 762/2012 (Ex. Sep. Mahavir Singh vs. UOI & ors.) whereby OA filed by the petitioner claiming disability pension from the date of his discharge from service i.e. 14.02.1986 along with rounding off benefits to 75% w.e.f. 01.01.1996, was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner, who was enrolled in the Army on 07.05.1977, suffered [2025:RJ-JP:9323-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-1747/2025] from Tuberculosis disease while in service. The petitioner was placed in low medical category due to disability acquired by him during the span of service, which is aggravated by service. After rendering 8 years, 9 months and 8 days service, he was discharged from service. Learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner cannot be thrown out of service adopting hire and fire policy akin to a casual labour at the will of the commanding officer/Record Office on the ground that service is no longer required. He has, therefore, argued that discharge of the petitioner was against the legal and fundamental constitutional rights and he is eligible for grant of disability pension. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that denial of disability pension is a continuing cause of action, therefore, delay, if any, ought to have been condoned. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ex. Cpl. Ranganathan Nair vs. Union of India & ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 1320- 1321/2019) decided on 06.08.2024 as well as Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Mumbai in Hanumantrao Narayan Patil, Ex-Havildar vs. Union of India & others (M.A. No. 49/2020 in OA No. 120/2020) decided on 08.06.2022. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has supported the order of the tribunal and submitted that pursuant to a complaint dated 22.06.1984 regarding fraudulent enrolment, case of the petitioner was examined and he was found to have got himself enrolled in the Army by concealing his age and civil educational qualification resulting in his irregular enrolment. [2025:RJ-JP:9323-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-1747/2025] Therefore, his retention in the Army had become unjustifiable in public interest. The petitioner was granted opportunity of hearing by serving show cause notice, in response to which, he admitted that he had concealed his age and civil education because as per civil education certificate, he was overage for enrolment in the Army. The petitioner was, therefore, not considered as fit person to be retained in service and was discharged from service on 14.02.1986 on administrative ground under Rule 13(3)III(v) of the Army Rules, 1954 being service no longer required. Learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that the OA was filed by the petitioner after lapse of 27 years and no plausible explanation for such delay has been forthcoming on record, therefore, OA was rightly rejected. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. A perusal of the record reveals that it is an admitted position that the petitioner was enrolled in the Army on 07.05.1977 and on the basis of a complaint regarding fraudulent enrolment, he was discharged from service on 14.02.1986 after serving a show cause notice. In response to the notice, the petitioner admitted that he got himself enrolled in the Army through unfair means by altering his age. The claim regarding disability pension has been raised by the petitioner by filing OA after 27 years of his discharge from service. No evidence much less a document has been placed on record by the petitioner to show that he ever approached the respondents or Zila Sainik Kalyan Board for redressal of his grievance. [2025:RJ-JP:9323-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-1747/2025] 8. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner do not help the petitioner and turn on their own facts as no application for condonation of delay supported by affidavit was filed by the petitioner along with OA. Thus, in our view, the tribunal after appreciating entire material on record has rightly passed the order impugned rejecting the OA, which does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction. 9. The writ petition filed by the petitioner being bereft of merit is dismissed accordingly. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ INDER/8