[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India And Others vs Naresh Kumar And Another on 24 December, 2025
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi, Vikas Suri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: 24.12.2025
108
CWP-36886-2025
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
...Petitioners
Versus
EX NK SUKHBIR SINGH AND ANOTHER
...Respondents
118
CWP-39121-2025
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
...Petitioners
Versus
NO 14467879 H EX HAV HONY NAIB SUBEDAR JASBIR SINGH AND
ANOTHER
...Respondents
119
CWP-39125-2025
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
...Petitioners
Versus
NARESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER
...Respondents
121
CWP-39156-2025
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
...Petitioners
Versus
GURMEET SINGH SINCE DECEASED THROUGH SMT BEERPAL
KAUR LR AND ANOTHER
...Respondents
122
CWP-39186-2025
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
...Petitioners
Versus
KAMLA DEVI AND ANOTHER
...Respondents
1 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2025 21:08:33 :::
CWP-36886-2025 & connected case (2)
123
CWP-39189-2025
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
...Petitioners
Versus
KARAMJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
Present:- Mr. Dharam Chand Mittal, Senior Panel Counsel,
for the petitioners in CWP-36886-2025.
Mr. Karanvir Singh Kathuria, Senior Panel Counsel,
for the petitioners in CWP-39121-2025.
Mr. Rohit Verma, Senior Panel Counsel,
for the petitioners in CWP-39125-2025, CWP-39156-2025 and
CWP-39189-2025.
Ms. Shalini Atri, Senior Panel Counsel,
for the petitioners in CWP-39186-2025.
Mr. Rajesh Sehgal, Advocate,
for respondent No.1 in CWP-39121-2025.
*****
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (ORAL)
1. By this order, we propose to dispose of six writ petitions i.e.
CWP-36886-2025, CWP-39121-2025, CWP-39125-2025, CWP-39156-
2025, CWP-39189-2025 and CWP-39186-2025 by a common order as the
issues involved in these cases are same. With the consent of learned counsel
for the petitioners, the facts are being taken from CWP-36886-2025.
2. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order
dated 11.07.2025 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent No. 2-Armed Forces
Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as
2 of 10
CWP-36886-2025 & connected case (3)
'Tribunal'), by which, respondent No.1 has been allowed the benefit of
disability element of disability pension along with benefit of rounding off of
the disability pension from 40 % to 50 % for life w.e.f. 01.09.2021 keeping
in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, on the ground that
the same is perverse.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon the
report of Release Medical Board of respondent No.1 to hold that though the
disability of "Primary Hypertension" assessed @ 40% for life has been
found in respondent No.1, but the same has been held by the Release
Medical Board to be 'neither attributable to Military Service nor aggravated
by the Military service'. Hence, the grant of benefit of disability pension to
respondent No.1 and rounding off the same from 40% to 50% by the learned
Tribunal vide order dated 11.07.2025 (Annexure P-7), is incorrect.
3. We have heard Learned counsel for the petitioners and have
gone through the case file with their able assistance.
4. It is a conceded fact that respondent No.1 enrolled in Indian
Army service of petitioner-UOI on 15.08.2003 and was discharged from
service on 31.08.2021 after rendering 18 years and 17 days of service. It is
also a conceded fact that at the time when respondent No. 1 joined the armed
forces i.e. 15.08.2003, he was medically examined and was not found
suffering from any such disease, on the basis of which, respondent No. 1
was ultimately discharged from service.
5. 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
3 of 10
CWP-36886-2025 & connected case (4)
examination at the time of his/her selection and was not found 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
Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982' that the said disability has been
contracted by the employee during his service career and is, thus, entitled for
the benefit of disability pension. The relevant para Nos. 30 and 32 of the
judgment in Dharamvir Singh's case (supra) 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
4 of 10
CWP-36886-2025 & connected case (5)
thereof. YES Disability is not related to mil service"
32. In spite of the aforesaid provisions, the Pension
Sanctioning Authority failed to notice that the
Medical Board 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."
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 to 50% 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)
5 of 10
CWP-36886-2025 & connected case (6)
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 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.
6 of 10
CWP-36886-2025 & connected case (7)
8. Further, as per the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in Bijender Singh versus Union of India and others, 2025
SSC OnLine SC 895, the same issue has been considered again and it has
been held that proving that disability is not attributed to military service is
upon employer and report of Medical Board cannot be accepted especially
when no disability was detected at the time of entry into service, relevant
paras are as under
"46. Referring back to the impugned order dated
26.02.2016, we find that the Tribunal simply went by
the remarks of the Invaliding Medical Board and Re-
Survey Medical Boards to hold that since the
disability of the appellant was less than 20%, he
would not be entitled to the disability element of the
disability pension. Tribunal did not examine the issue
as to whether the disability was attributable to or
aggravated by military service. In the instant case
neither has it been mentioned by the Invaliding
Medical Board nor by the Re-Survey Medical Boards
that the disease for which the appellant was invalided
out of service could not be detected at the time of
entry into military service. As a matter of fact, the
Invaliding Medical Board was quite categorical that
no disability of the appellant existed before entering
service. As would be evident from the aforesaid
decisions of this Court, the law has by now crystalized
that if there is no note or report of the Medical Board
at the time of entry into service that the member
suffered from any particular disease, the presumption
would be that the member got afflicted by the said
disease because of military service. Therefore the
burden of proving that the disease is not attributable
to or aggravated by military service rest entirely on
the employer. Further, any disease or disability for
which a member of the armed forces is invalided out
of service would have to be assumed to be above 20%
and attract grant of 50% disability pension.
47. Thus having regard to the discussions made above,
we are of the considered view that the impugned
orders of the Tribunal are wholly unsustainable in
7 of 10
CWP-36886-2025 & connected case (8)
law. That being the position, impugned orders dated
22.01.2018 and 26.02.2016 are hereby set aside.
Consequently, respondents are directed to grant the
disability element of disability pension to the
appellant at the rate of 50% with effect from
01.01.1996 onwards for life. The arrears shall carry
interest at the rate of 6% per annum till payment. The
above directions shall be carried out by the
respondents within three months from today."
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners have 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), Reet MP Singh's case (supra) and Bijender Singh's case
(supra).
10. Keeping in view the settled principle of law settled in
Dharamvir Singh's case (supra), Ram Avtar's case (supra), Reet MP
Singh's case (supra) and Bijender Singh's case (supra) as well as the facts
and circumstances of the present cases that at the time of selection,
respondent No.1 was medically examined and was found fit in all respects
and it was only after respondent No.1 rendered service for more than 18
years with the petitioner-UOI, he was found to be suffering from the
"Primary Hypertension" along with the fact that no cogent evidence/material
or detailed medical record has been brought on record to show this Court
that the disability is not attributable to military service. That being so, the
said disability has to be attributed to the military service and the report of
Medical Board cannot take away the right of respondent No.1 to claim the
benefit of disability pension.
11. Facts of the other cases also cover the grant of benefit in favour
of the respondents in the respective writ petitions. Principle of law cited
8 of 10
CWP-36886-2025 & connected case (9)
hereinbefore also cover the case of respondents for the grant of benefit in
their favour.
12. As for CWP-39186-2025, the facts and circumstances differ
from the bunch of petitions only to the extent that benefit of rounding off of
the disability pension from 20% to 50% has been granted to respondent No.1
along with the arrears admissible for the period starting from 01.05.1998 till
09.10.2009, which grant of benefit has been challenged by petitioner. As far
grant of benefit of rounding off of disability pension from 20% to 50%, said
issue has already been dealt by hereinbefore by placing reliance upon
judgment of Ram Avtar's case (supra) and hence, the said grant of benefit to
respondent No.1 is correct.
13. As far as the grievance of petitioners qua grant of arrears, it
shall be noted that said issue is also squarely covered by the judgment of 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), 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
9 of 10
CWP-36886-2025 & connected case (10)
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."
14. No other argument has been raised.
15. Hence, in the absence of any perversity being pointed out in the
impugned order dated 11.07.2025 (Annexure P-7) 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.
16. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed.
17. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
18. Photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected
cases.
( HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI )
JUDGE
( VIKAS SURI )
December 24, 2025 JUDGE
harish
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable No
10 of 10
