Tribunal Directs Reconsideration of Ex-Serviceman’s Re-enrolment Request

The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), Regional Bench at Chandigarh, delivered a significant order in OA 1448 of 2024, directing the Record Office of the Indian Armed Forces to reconsider the application for re-enrolment submitted by an ex-serviceman, Abhishek, who was earlier invalided out of service on medical grounds.

Background of the Case

Abhishek, represented by Advocate Major Balbir Singh (Retd), was invalided out of the Indian Armed Forces on June 4, 2022, after rendering 1 year, 10 months, and 13 days of actual service. The reason for his invalidation was diagnosed as Sputum Smear Positive Pulmonary Tuberculosis (A15), which was later declared negative.

At the time of discharge, his disability was assessed at 100% for a period of one year, based on which he was granted an invalid pension for that duration. A Re-Assessment Medical Board, convened on July 14, 2023, later concluded that the disability had become ‘NIL’, essentially meaning that the applicant had fully recovered and was medically fit.

Subsequently, Abhishek submitted an application for re-enrolment on March 19, 2024, which was rejected by the Record Office through a communication dated May 6, 2024. The rejection, however, did not cite Paragraph 143(b) of the Defence Service Regulations, which is relevant to such cases of re-enrolment after medical recovery.

Arguments Presented

The applicant’s legal counsel argued that, according to Para 143(b) of the Defence Service Regulations, an individual who was previously invalided out due to disability but has since recovered fully is entitled to apply for re-enrolment. The outright rejection of the application without due consideration of this regulation was therefore unjustified.

The Tribunal’s Direction

The Tribunal Bench comprising Justice Sudhir Mittal (Judicial Member) and Air Marshal Manavendra Singh (Administrative Member), after hearing both parties, observed that the Record Office had failed to consider the relevant provision in the Defence Service Regulations. Importantly, the learned DSGI, Mr. J.S. Lalli, appearing on behalf of the respondents (Union of India and others), did not oppose the request and waived formal service of notice.

In light of this, the Tribunal dispensed with the requirement for a written statement and passed an order directing the Record Office to re-examine the application dated March 19, 2024. The Tribunal emphasized that the decision should be made specifically in reference to Para 143(b) and should culminate in a reasoned (speaking) order.

Timeline for Compliance

The Tribunal has granted a period of eight weeks from the date the respondents receive a certified copy of the order to comply with its direction and issue a speaking order regarding the applicant’s re-enrolment.

Conclusion

This case marks a vital step in ensuring procedural fairness and due application of regulations in the Armed Forces administrative framework. It reinforces that ex-servicemen who recover fully from previously disabling conditions deserve a fair chance at re-enrolment, especially when supported by medical evidence and statutory provisions.