Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India And Others vs Dharam Bir Yadav And Another on 10 November, 2025
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi, Vikas Suri
CWP-33080-2025 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
108 CWP-33080-2025 (O&M)
Date of Decision :10.11.2025
Union of India and others ... Petitioners
Versus
Dharam Bir Yadav & another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
Present: Mr. Rohit Verma, Senior Panel Counsel
for petitoners-UOI.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)
1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 17.07.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2-Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh, (for short, 'the Tribunal') by which, respondent No.1 has been allowed the benefit of rounding off of the disability element from 30% to 50% w.e.f. 01.01.2005 for life.
2. The only argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that respondent No.1 is not entitled to the benefit of rounding off the disability pension from 30% to 50% by placing reliance upon the judgment in Civil Appeal No.418-2012 Union of India and others vs. Ram Avtar, decided on 10.12.2014 and the facts of the present case have not been appreciated in correct perspective by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order dated 17.07.2023 (Annexure P-1).
1 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 12-11-2025 10:12:28 :::
CWP-33080-2025 (O&M) -2-
3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the case file with his able assistance.
4. It is a conceded fact that at the time when respondent No.1 was discharged from service on 01.01.2005 on completion of his terms of engagement under Army Rule 13(3) Item III (i), he had already rendered 18 years of service with the petitioners-Union of India. It is also a conceded fact that at the time when respondent No. 1 joined the armed forces i.e. 02.12.1987, he was medically examined and was not found suffering from any such disease.
5. A bare perusal of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal states that even the Medical Board has assessed disability of 'Primary Hypertension' @ 30% and aggravated by military service and the said fact has gone unrebutted at the hands of the petitioners. Keeping in view this fact also, when even the Medical Board has conceded that the disease which led to the discharge of the officer concerned was attributed to the military service, filing of the petition by the Union of India is contrary to the recommendations of the Medical Board itself.
6. Further, as per the settled principle of law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India and others vs. Ram Avtar, 2014 SCC Online SC 1761, any officer serving in the Armed Forces, who had undergone the medical examination at the time of his/her selection and was found fit, subsequently upon suffering a disability, is entitled to the benefit of disability pension by rounding off the same as the presumption would be that the disability suffered is attributable to the Military service. Relevant paras of the judgment in Ram Avtar's case (supra) are as under:-
"4. By the present set of appeals the appellant(s) raise the 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 12-11-2025 10:12:29 ::: CWP-33080-2025 (O&M) -3- question, whether or not, an individual, who has retired on attaining the age of superannuation or on completion of his tenure of engagement, if found to be suffering from some disability which is attributable to or aggravated by the military service, is entitled to be granted the benefit of rounding-off of disability pension. The appellant(s) herein would contend that, on the basis of Circular No. 1(2)/97/D(Pen-C) issued by the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, dated 31.01.2001, the aforesaid benefit is made available only to an Armed Forces Personnel who is invalidated out of service, and not to any other category of Armed Forces Personnel mentioned hereinabove.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
6. We do not see any error in the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) and therefore all the appeals which pertain to the concept of rounding-off of the disability pension are dismissed, with no order as to costs.
7. The dismissal of these matters will be taken note of by the High Courts as well as by the Tribunals in granting appropriate relief to the pensioners before them, if any, who are getting or are entitled to the disability pension."
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to dispute the said proposition of law having been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ram Avtar's case (supra) to the effect that percentage of disability is to be rounded off and when applied in present case, disability of 30% is to be rounded off to 50%.
8. Further, in a recent judgment in Civil Appeal No.11311 of 2025 titled as Union of India and others vs. Reet MP Singh and another, decided on 01.09.2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by placing reliance upon Union of India and others vs. Ram Avtar, 2014 SCC Online SC 1761 as well as Bijender Singh vs. Union of India and others, 2025 SCC Online SC 895, has again reiterated that the benefit of rounding off the disability element cannot be denied.
9. Keeping in view the facts and circumstance of the present case as well as the settled principle of law settled in Ram Avtar's case (supra) as well as in Reet M.P. Singh's case (supra) once at the time of selection, respondent No. 1 was medically examined and was found fit in all respects 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 12-11-2025 10:12:29 ::: CWP-33080-2025 (O&M) -4- and it was only during the service, respondent No.1 was found suffering from 'Primary Hypertension', that being so, claim of respondent No.1 for the benefit of disability pension by rounding off the disability from 30% to 50% as per the settled principle of law settled in Ram Avtar's case (supra) has rightly been allowed by the Tribunal.
9. No other argument has been raised.
10. Hence, in the absence of any perversity being pointed out in the impugned order dated 17.07.2023 (Annexure P-1) either on the basis of the facts or the settled principle of law, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
11. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
JUDGE
(VIKAS SURI)
November 10, 2025 JUDGE
aarti Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
4 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 12-11-2025 10:12:29 :::