Page 66 - 5_COMPENDIUM VOL-5

VOLUME – V CHAPTER 1

11. At the cost of repetition, it is reiterated that the Respondent

was discharged under Rule 13(3) III(v) of the Army Rules, 1954 on

administrative grounds as an undesirable soldier and not on the

ground of medical disability. Any opinion of the Release Medical

th
Board held on 30 January 1997 with regard to the ailment of the

Respondent does not entitle the Respondent to disability pension, as

the ailment did not lead to his discharge. In any case, even as per

the opinion of the Release Medical Board, the disability, if any, of the

Respondent was not attributable to military service. The Tribunal

recorded that the Release Medical Board had in Paragraph 3(d) stated

“Disability constitutional in origin, unrelated to service”.

12. For over 20 years from the date of the discharge, the

Respondent did not challenge his discharge on the administrative

ground of being an undesirable soldier. His discharge on

administrative grounds could not have been challenged after two

decades.

13. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Tribunal fell in error

nd
in passing its order dated 2 November 2018 directing the Appellants

to convene a Resurvey/Review Medical Board at the Military Hospital,

Chennai or a designated hospital for the purpose of examining the

applicant and assessing the degree of disability due to “Right Partial

Seizure with Secondary Generalisation 345” and the probable

duration of disability. The tenor of the order itself shows that even

the Tribunal realized that accurate medical opinion could not have

5

54