The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) has ruled that civilian integrated financial advisers embedded in Service Headquarters cannot reject disability claims of defence personnel once approved by the military authorities if there is no violation of any financial rules.
Allowing the applications of two Army officers who were injured in the course of their service but were denied disability benefits even though their injuries were held attributable to military service, the Tribunal’s Chandigarh Bench comprising Justice Sudhir Mittal and Lt Gen Ranbir Singh held in their order of May 7 that in accordance with rules, the competent authority for assessing the attributability in injury cases of officers is the Service Headquarters.
The Army Headquarters had processed the claims for disability pension at the time of retirement of the two officers, a Lieutenant Colonel and a Major, but the Principal Integrated Financial Adviser (PIFA) raised objections regarding lack of documents proving the case and proceedings of the court of inquiry.
Objections was also raised over one of the officers being retained in service for a long period of time even though he became disabled and also over non-consideration of paying one-time compensation in lieu of disability pension element. The objections were responded to, but financial concurrence was not granted.
The Bench opined that the PIFA exceeded its charter of duties by raising objections on the merits of the case and doubting the documentation already verified by the Service Headquarters, besides saying that retaining disabled officers in service revealed a policy vacuum that needed to be filled up.
“It is evident that PIFA provides advice on financial matters to ensure that financial propriety is maintained and the department does not spend more than the available resources. The advice must be such that it supports the Department in achieving its aims,” the Bench said. “He cannot review the administrative or non-financial matter when it has been referred for financial concurrence,” it added.
“The refusal to grant financial concurrence is held to be beyond jurisdiction and malicious. It has resulted in adversely affecting the efficiency of the administrative department, whereas the financial advisor is expected to contribute to the same,” the Bench ruled while quashing the orders rejecting financial concurrence and holding the applicants entitled to disability benefits.
