Union Of India vs Ranjit Singh And Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 1141 P&H

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 1141 P&H
Judgement Date : 20 January, 2025

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Union Of India vs Ranjit Singh And Anr on 20 January, 2025

Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, Meenakshi I. Mehta

                                Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007546-DB




147          IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH




                                            CWP-34328
                                                  34328-2024 (O&M)
                                            Date of Decision: 20.01.2025

Union of India & others                                       ...Petitioners
                          Vs.
Ex Sapper Ranjit Singh and another                            ...Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
       HON'BLE MRS.
               MR JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA


Present      M Jyoti Choudhary, Sr. Panel Counsel for the petitioner
             Ms.                                          petitioners.
                            ***
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)

1. The Union of India in this th writ petition is assailing the order

passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal dated 03.12.2021, whereby the AFT

directed as under:-

under:

"Considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court "Considering

and also the attending circumstances, the rejection of the claim

of the application is set aside and the applicant is thus held

entitled to disability pension @ 50% as against 44 44% for life

after being rounded off as per judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Civil Appeal No.418/2012, Union of India vs. Ram

Avtar decided on 10.122.014 and the arrears are directed to be

released by the respondents within a period of three months

from the receipt of a certified copy of this order by the counsel

for the respondents/OIC respondents/OIC Legal Cell, failing which the arrears

shall carry an interest @ 8% from the date of this order.

1 of 4

Neutral CWP-34328-2024 (O&MCitation No:=2025:PHHC:007546-DB

It is made clear that in case the applicant is already in receipt of

the service pension or service element for the said spell of

service in that case he shall be entitled only to the disability

element of disability pension only."

2. Apart from the fact that no reason is coming forward for not

challenging the order dated 03.12.2021 for almost four years, the challenge is

now essentially made on the ground that the respondent No.1 had been found

to be suffering from hypertension initially after three years of service and

thereafter he has served in Army continuously. Learned counsel therefore,

submits that the disability of 44% which has arisen after having completed

full period of service, cannot result in releasing disability pension. She has

vehemently argued that the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the case of Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India and others (2013) 7

SCC 316, would have no application to the facts of the present case.

3. We have carefully considered the judgment.

4. The writ petition is highly belated and suffers from laches and

on this count alone, we could have dismissed the same but we have

proceeded to examine the matter on merits and find that at the time of

release, the Medical Board had declared that disability is aggravated by

military service and Release Medical Board, however, did not accept the said

report of the Medial Board and released him without giving disability

pension.

5. In Dharamvir Singh's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has

held as under:-

"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

2 of 4

Neutral CWP-34328-2024 (O&MCitation No:=2025:PHHC:007546-DB

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: