Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India And Others vs No14291327 K Ex Nk Ts Lachhman Dass And ... on 6 November, 2025
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi, Vikas Suri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
105 CWP-27953-2025 (O&M)
Decided on : 06.11.2025
UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF DEFENCE AND OTHERS
. .Petitioners
Versus
NO14291327 K EX NK (TS) LACHHMAN DASS AND ANOTHER
. . . Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
PRESENT: Ms. Gurmeet Kaur Gill, Senior Panel Counsel
for the petitioners.
****
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)
1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order
dated 02.04.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2-Armed Forces
Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh, (for short, 'the Tribunal') by which,
respondent No.1 has been allowed the benefit of disability pension by
rounding off the disability element @ 50% as against 30% w.e.f. 01.01.1996
to 31.12.2015.
2. The only argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners
is that rounding off the disability pension to respondent No. 1 from 30% to
50% 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 02.04.2024 (Annexure P-1).
3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone
through the case file with her able assistance.
1 of 4
CWP-27953-2025 (O&M)
4. It is a conceded fact that at the time when respondent No.1 was
discharged from service on 30.11.1987 on completion of his terms of
engagement under Army Rule 13(3) Item III (i), he had already rendered 15
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.
18.11.1972, 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.
5. A bare perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal which states
that even the Medical Board has assessed disability of " (I) PLUMONARY
TUBER CULOSIS (II) FRACTURE PETELLA (LT) N-822, E-884" @ 30%
which is held to be attributable to the military service by the petitioners and
the said 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 attributed 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 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 the judgment in Ram Avtar's case (supra) are as under:-
2 of 4
CWP-27953-2025 (O&M)
"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."
7. 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
30% is to be rounded off to 50%.
8. 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
Union of India and others vs. Ram Avtar, 2014 SCC Online SC 1761 as
well as Bijender Singh vs. Union of India and others, 2025 SCC Online SC
895, has again reiterated that the benefit of rounding off the disability
element cannot be denied.
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) as
well as in Reet M.P. Singh's case (supra) once at the time of selection,
respondent No. 1 was medically examined and was found fit in all respects
3 of 4
CWP-27953-2025 (O&M)
and it was only during the service, respondent No.1 was found suffering from
" (I) PLUMONARY TUBER CULOSIS (II) FRACTURE PETELLA (LT) N-
822, E-884" , which disability was attributable to military service as per
Medical Board, that being so, claim of respondent No.1 for the benefit of
disability pension by rounding off the disability from 30% to 50% has
rightly been allowed by the Tribunal.
9. No other argument has been raised.
10. Hence, in the absence of any perversity being pointed out in the
impugned order dated 02.04.2024 (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.
11. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
JUDGE
( VIKAS SURI )
JUDGE
06.11.2025
Riya
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
