[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India And Others vs Harmail Singh And Another on 24 December, 2025
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi, Vikas Suri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
130 CWP-39282-2025
Date of Decision: 24.12.2025
Union of India and others ....Petitioners
Versus
Rishipal and another
....Respondents
131 CWP-39296-2025
Union of India and others ....Petitioners
Versus
Harmail Singh and another
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
----
Present: Mr. Rohit Verma, Advocate
for the petitioners in both the petitions.
****
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)
1. Both the petitions, the details of which are mentioned in the
heading, involve common point of law and common set of facts, hence, they
are being dealt together. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken
from CWP No.39282-2025.
2. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order
dated 17.07.2025 (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 held entitled to disability
pension by rounding off disability from 30% to 50% on the ground that the
1 of 7
CWP-39282-2025 and
CWP-39296-2025
same is perverse.
3. The only argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is
that respondent No.1 is neither entitled to the benefit of disability pension, nor
for the benefit of rounding off the disability pension from 30% to 50% as the
same is contrary to assessment made by Medical Board and the grant of said
benefits by Tribunal by placing reliance upon the judgment passed in Original
Application No.861 of 2022 titled as Ex MWO Bhupinder Singh vs. Union
of India and others, decided on 06.12.2024, is incorrect, and thus, the grant of
benefit of disability pension to respondent No.1 by rounding off 50% as
against 30% 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 17.07.2025 (Annexure P-1).
4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone
through the case file with his able assistance.
5. It may be noticed that respondent No.1 joined the Armed forces
on 25.09.2004 in a fit medical condition. While in service, he suffered a
disability of "Primary Hypertension (30%) for life" and ultimately respondent
No.1 was discharged from service on 30.04.2023. However, respondent No.1
was not granted the benefit of disability element of disability pension on the
ground that the said disability is neither attributable to nor aggravated by the
military service. Similar are the facts qua respondent No.1 in CWP-39296-
2025.
6. As per the principle settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Dharamvir Singh versus Union of India and others, (2013) 7 SCC 316, any
officer serving in the Armed Forces, who had undergone the medical
2 of 7
CWP-39282-2025 and
CWP-39296-2025
examination at the time of his/her selection and was not found to be suffering
from any such disease at that time on the basis of which, he/she has been
discharged from service, such an employee is entitled for the benefit of
presumption in his/her favour as per Rule 5 and 9 of 'Entitlement Rules for
Causality Pensionary Awards, 1982' that the said disability has been suffered
by the employee during his service career and is, thus, entitled for the benefit
of disability pension. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are as
under:
"30. In the present case it is undisputed that no note of any
disease has been recorded at the time of appellant's acceptance
for military service. The respondents have failed to bring on
record any document to suggest that the appellant was under
treatment for such a disease or by hereditary he is suffering from
such disease. In absence of any note in the service record at the
time of acceptance of joining of appellant it was incumbent on
the part of the Medical Board to call for records and look into
the same before coming to an opinion that the disease could not
have been detected on medical examination prior to the
acceptance for military service, but nothing is on the record to
suggest that any such record was called for by the Medical
Board or looked into it and no reasons have been recorded in
writing to come to the conclusion that the disability is not due to
military service. In fact, non-application of mind of Medical
Board is apparent from Clause (d) of paragraph 2 of the opinion
of the Medical Board, which is as follows:
(d) In the case of a disability under C the board should
state what exactly in their opinion is the cause thereof. YES "
31. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
32. In spite of the aforesaid provisions, the Pension
Sanctioning Authority failed to notice that the Medical Board
3 of 7
CWP-39282-2025 and
CWP-39296-2025
had not given any reason in support of its opinion, particularly
when there is no note of such disease or disability available in
the service record of the appellant at the time of acceptance for
military service. Without going through the aforesaid facts the
Pension Sanctioning Authority mechanically passed the
impugned order of rejection based on the report of the Medical
Board. As per Rules 5 and 9 of 'Entitlement Rules for Casualty
Pensionary Awards, 1982', the appellant is entitled for
presumption and benefit of presumption in his favour. In absence
of any evidence on record to show that the appellant was
suffering from "Genrealised seizure (Epilepsy)" at the time of
acceptance of his service, it will be presumed that the appellant
was in sound physical and mental condition at the time of
entering the service and deterioration in his health has taken
place due to service.
33. As per Rule 423(a) of General Rules for the purpose of
determining a question whether the cause of a disability or death
resulting from disease is or is not attributable to service, it is
immaterial whether the cause giving rise to the disability or
death occurred in an area declared to be a field service/active
service area or under normal peace conditions."
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to rebut that
in that case respondent No.1 is held entitled for the grant of disability pension
keeping in view the disability suffered, which disability is to be treated as to
attributable and aggravated by the military service.
8. Further, with regard to the grievance of petitioners qua the benefit
of rounding off of disability granted to respondent No.1, the same issue has
been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India and
others vs. Ram Avtar, 2014 SCC Online SC 1761, wherein it has been held
that an Armed Forces personnel is entitled to be granted the benefit of
4 of 7
CWP-39282-2025 and
CWP-39296-2025
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
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
5 of 7
CWP-39282-2025 and
CWP-39296-2025
pensioners before them, if any, who are getting or are
entitled to the disability pension."
9. 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 Ram Avtar's case (supra), has again reiterated that the benefit
of rounding off the disability element cannot be denied.
10. 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 Dharamvir Singh's case (supra), Ram Avtar's
case (supra) as well as Reet MP Singh's case (supra) to the effect that
percentage of disability to be rounded off and when applied in the present
case disability of 30% to be rounded off to 50%.
11. Keeping in view the facts and circumstance of the present case
as well as the settled principle of law settled in Dharamvir Singh's case
(supra), Ram Avtar's case (supra) as well as Reet MP Singh's case
(supra), respondent No.1 has rightly been held to be entitled to disability
pension by rounding off the disability element from 30% to 50%.
12. No other argument has been raised.
13. Hence, in the absence of any perversity being pointed out in
the impugned orders of both the cases dated 17.07.2025 (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.
14. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed.
6 of 7
CWP-39282-2025 and
CWP-39296-2025
15. Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other
connected case.
16. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
JUDGE
(VIKAS SURI)
December 24, 2025 JUDGE
Varinder
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
7 of 7
