Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India And Others vs Avneet Singh Basur And Another on 11 November, 2025
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi, Vikas Suri
CWP-33130-2024 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
239 CWP-33130-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision :11.11.2025
Union of India and others ... Petitioners
Versus
Avneet Singh Basur and another ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
Present: Mr. Bharat Bhushan Sharma, Senior Panel Counsel
for the petitioners-UOI.
None for the respondents.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)
1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order
dated 09.11.2022 (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 alongwith benefit of rounding off of the disability element
from 30% to 50%.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon the
report of medical examination of respondent No.1 to contend that though,
the disability of 'Primary Hypertension' has been found to be existing in
respondent No.1, but the said disability has been held to be 'neither
attributable to nor aggravated by military service'. Hence, the grant of
benefit of disability pension to respondent No.1 @ 50% for life by the
Tribunal by placing reliance upon the judgment passed in Dharamvir Singh
1 of 6
CWP-33130-2024 (O&M) -2-
vs. Union of India and others, (2013) 7 SCC 316 and Union of India and
others vs. Ram Avtar, 2014 SCC Online SC 1761, is incorrect.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have
gone through the case file with his able assistance.
4. Few facts need to be taken into consideration while deciding the
present case, which are; that at the time when respondent No.1 was released
from service on 31.01.2020, he had already rendered 31 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. on 26.08.1989 he was
medically examined and was found not to be suffering from any such
disease on the basis of which he was ultimately discharged from service and
the said fact has been made the basis by the Tribunal while granting benefit
to the respondent No.1.
5. A perusal of the paper book along with the impugned order
would reveal that grievance of petitioners is qua two aspects firstly, that
benefit of disability pension and second that the benefit of rounding off of
disability pension has been wrongly granted to respondent No.1.
6. It should be noted that as per judgment in Dharamvir Singh's
case (supra) in a case where army personnel is found to be fit at the time of
enrolment, and has later found to be contracted with a disease, same is
presumed to have been aggravated by and attributable to military service as
per Rules 5 and 9 of Entitlement Rules, 1982 The relevant para Nos.30, 32
and 33 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
2 of 6
CWP-33130-2024 (O&M) -3-
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 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
3 of 6
CWP-33130-2024 (O&M) -4-
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.
"Classification of diseases" have been
prescribed at Chapter IV of Annexure I; under
paragraph 4 post traumatic epilepsy and other
mental changes resulting from head injuries
have been shown as one of the diseases affected
by training, marching, prolonged standing etc.
Therefore, the presumption would be that the
disability of the appellant bore a casual
connection with the service conditions."
7. 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 Ram
Avtar's case (supra), wherein it has been held that any officer serving in the
Armed Forces, who had undergone the medical examination at the time of
his/her enrolment and was found fit and is subsequently found to be
suffering with a disability, is entitled to the benefit of disability pension by
rounding off the same as the presumption would be in favour of such
employee, that the disability suffered during the service is attributable to
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
4 of 6
CWP-33130-2024 (O&M) -5-
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 Dharamvir Singh's case (supra) and Ram Avtar's case
(supra) to the effect that percentage of disability is to be rounded off and in
the present case, the disability of 30% is to be rounded off to 50%.
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) 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.
10. 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
5 of 6
CWP-33130-2024 (O&M) -6-
(supra), Ram Avtar's case (supra) as well as Reet M.P. Singh (supra) once
at the time of enrolment, respondent No.1 was medically examined and was
found to be fit in all respects and it was only during his service period that
respondent No.1 was found to be suffering from 'Primary Hypertension',
that being so, the said disability has to be attributed to the military service
and the unsubstantiated report of Medical Board cannot take away the right
of respondent No.1 to claim the benefit of disability pension and that too, by
rounding off the disability from 30% to 50%.
11. Hence, in the absence of any perversity being pointed out in the
impugned order dated 09.11.2022 (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
(VIKAS SURI)
November 11, 2025 JUDGE
aarti Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
6 of 6
