Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India And Ors vs Madan Lal Sharma And Anr on 6 November, 2025
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi, Vikas Suri
CWP-32844-2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(112) CWP-32844-2025
Date of Decision : November 06, 2025
Union of India and others .. Petitioners
Versus
Ex. Subedar Hony. Lt. Madan Lal Sharma and another
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
Present: Ms. Neha Sharma, Senior Panel Counsel, for the petitioners.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)
1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order
dated 27.08.2024 (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 along with the benefit of rounding off the disability element
@ 50% as against 20% w.e.f. 01.09.1996 to 31.12.2015 and thereafter, w.e.f.
01.01.2016 on the ground that the same is perverse.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that keeping in view
the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 7672
of 2019 titled as Narsingh Yadav Versus Union of India and others
decided on 03.10.2019, due weightage is to be given to the medical report
and that same cannot be rejected mechanically. Learned counsel for the
petitioners further submits that keeping in view the said aspect the benefit of
disability pension has been wrongly granted to respondent No.1.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the
benefit of rounding off of disability element of disability pension @ 50% as
1 of 4
against 20% has also been wrongly granted.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone
through the case file with her able assistance.
5. It is conceded fact that at the time when respondent No.1 was
discharged from service on 31.08.1996 on completion of his terms of
engagement under Army Rule 13(3) Item I (i) (a), he had already rendered 28
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. 05.06.1968,
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.
6. A perusal of the records reveals that even the Medical Board has
assessed disability of 'Primary Hypertension (401)' 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 and hence, reliance upon Narsingh Yadav's case
(supra) has been wrongly placed.
7. 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
2 of 4
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 pensioners before
them, if any, who are getting or are entitled to the
disability pension."
8. 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 20% is to be
rounded off to 50%.
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), 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 'Primary Hypertension (401)'. 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
3 of 4
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 27.08.2024 (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.
12. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
JUDGE
November 06, 2025 (VIKAS SURI)
harsha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
4 of 4
