Union Of India And Others vs Umed Singh And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 6333 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Union Of India And Others vs Umed Singh And Another on 15 December, 2025

Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi, Vikas Suri

CWP-37323-2025                  1

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH

(112)                           CWP-37323-2025

                                Date of Decision : December 15, 2025

Union of India and others                                   .. Petitioners


                                Versus

Ex. Sub Umed Singh and another                              .. Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI

Present:     Mr. Ramesh Chand Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners.

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)

1. In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the impugned

order dated 05.08.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2-Armed

Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as

'the Tribunal') by which, respondent No.1 has been allowed the benefit of

disability pension by rounding off the disability element @ 50% as against

20% w.e.f. 01.10.2005 to 31.12.2015 on the ground that the same is

perverse.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon the

report of medical examination of respondent No. 1 to contend that though

the disability of 'Paranoid Schizophrenia, Open Globe Injury CRD Eye

Effects at and Primary Open and Primary Open and Glaucoma (Lt) Eye' as

assessed @ 20% has been found in respondent No.1, but he has been

discharged from service on 30.09.2005 on completion of his terms of

engagement under Army Rules. Hence, the grant of benefit of disability

pension to respondent No.1 by rounding off the disability element @ 50%

1 of 6

as against 20% w.e.f. 01.10.2005 to 31.12.2015 by placing reliance upon the

judgment of in Civil Appeal No. 5591-2006 titled as KJS Buttar vs. Union

of India and another, decided on 31.03.2011 and Civil Appeal No.418-

2012 Union of India and others vs. Ram Avtar, decided on 10.12.2014 is

incorrect and the facts of the present case have not been appreciated in

correct perspective by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order dated

05.08.2024 (Annexure P-1). Learned counsel for the petitioners has further

argued that the benefit of arrears granted to respondent No.1, in pursuance

to granting the benefit of rounding off disability pension from 20% to 50%,

which has been granted to respondent No.1 for whole of the intervening

period, is incorrect in view of the judgment in Shiv Dass vs. Union of India

and others, (2007) 9 SCC 274, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

explicitly settled that where a claim is raised after a delay, Courts are to

restrict the benefit of arrears to 03 years preceding the filing of the Original

Application hence, the grant of disability pension by rounding off @ 50%

along with arrears for whole of the intervening period, is incorrect.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have

gone through the case file with his able assistance.

4. It is conceded fact that at the time when respondent No.1 was

discharged from service on 30.09.2005 on completion of his terms of

engagement under Army Rules, he had already rendered 17 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. 30.07.1988, he was

medically examined and was not found suffering from any such disease, on

the basis of which, respondent No. 1 has been granted the benefit of

disability pension.

2 of 6

5. A perusal of the records reveals that even the Medical Board

has assessed disability of 'Paranoid Schizophrenia, Open Globe Injury

CRD Eye Effects at and Primary Open and Primary Open and Glaucoma

(Lt) Eye' and held to be attributable to the military service, which fact has

gone unrebutted. 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 attributable 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 Ram Avtar's case (supra), wherein it has been

held that an Armed Forces personnel is entitled to be granted the benefit of

rounding off with regard to disability pension, irrespective of the fact that

he was invalidated out of service, or retired on attaining the age of

superannuation or on completion of his tenure of his engagement, if found

to be suffering from some disability which is attributable or aggravated by

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 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

3 of 6

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. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in recent judgment passed

in Civil Appeal No.11311 of 2025 decided on 01.09.2025 titled as Union of

India and others vs. Reet MP Singh and another, the grant of benefit of

rounding off the disability as per Ram Avtar's case (supra) has again been

upheld, which fact has gone un-rebutted at the hands of the petitioners.

8. With regard to the grievance of petitioners qua grant of benefit

of arrears for whole of the intervening period, as per the settled principle of

law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.3086 of

2012 titled "Balbir Singh vs. Union of India and others", decided on

08.04.2016, wherein also the question for consideration was regarding limiting

the benefits of arrears admissible for a period of three years, wherein the

benefit of arrears for the entire period, as was being claimed by the claimant

was granted to the claimant, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as under:

"XXX....The Tribunal was therefore justified in restoring the service element of the pension in favour of the appellant. The question however is whether the arrears could have been restricted to three years only. The Tribunal in our view need not have done so. That is because the appellant had a right to receive service element of the pension in light of Regulation 186 (supra),

4 of 6

which right was valuable and ought to have been protected.

We accordingly allow this appeal and modify the order passed by the Tribunal with the direction that the appellant shall be paid service element of the pension with effect from the date the said payment was stopped by the respondents. We however grant to the respondents three months time to calculate and release the arrears in favour of the appellant. In case the needful is not done within the time stipulated, the arrears payable to the appellant shall start earning interest at the rate of 9% from the date the period of three months expires till actual payment of the amount."

9. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case

as well as settled principle of law settled in Ram Avtar's case (supra), Reet

MP Singh's case (supra) and Balbir Singh's case (supra), once at the time

of selection, respondent No. 1 was medically examined and was found fit in

all respects and it was only during the service, respondent No.1 was found

suffering from 'Paranoid Schizophrenia, Open Globe Injury CRD Eye

Effects at and Primary Open and Primary Open and Glaucoma (Lt) Eye'.

That being so, claim of respondent No.1 for the benefit of disability pension

by rounding off the disability from 20% to 50% as per the settled principle

of law settled in Ram Avtar's case (supra) has rightly been allowed by the

Tribunal.

10. No other argument has been raised.

11. Hence, in the absence of any perversity being pointed out in the

impugned order dated 05.08.2024 (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.

5 of 6

12. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

                                     (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
                                            JUDGE



December 15, 2025                          (VIKAS SURI)
harsha                                        JUDGE

          Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
          Whether reportable       : No




                                  6 of 6