Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India And Ors vs Bajeer Chand And Anr on 27 November, 2025
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi, Vikas Suri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
111
CWP-35073-2025
Date of Decision: 27.11.2025
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
...Petitioners
Versus
BAJEER CHAND AND ANR
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
Present:- Ms. Bhavana Datta, Senior Panel Counsel,
for the petitioners.
*****
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (ORAL)
1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order
dated 10.04.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No. 2-Armed Forces
Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as
'Tribunal'), by which, respondent No.1 has been granted the benefit of War
Injury Pension.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the disability
sustained by respondent No.1 can attributed to the military service, but the
same could not have been treated as a war injury so as to grant him War
Injury Pension, hence, the order dated 10.04.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by
the Tribunal may kindly be set aside.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone
through the case file with her able assistance.
4. It may be noticed that respondent No.1 had joined the Army
1 of 4
CWP-35073-2025 (2)
service under petitioners-UOI on 10.06.1985 and invalidated out on
31.08.2001 having suffered a gun shot wound (RT) thigh with fracture femur
thigh (RT) and sciatic nerve injury (RT) OPTD, which was assessed to be
60% for life. The said injury was suffered while respondent No.1 was
deployed in operation 'RHINO'.
5. As per the notification issued by the Government of India
2003, the battle causality has been explained and it is cleared that as per
Appendix 'A' to the said notification AO/01/2003, any army personnel, who
is wounded unintentionally by own troops during the course of duty in an
operational area, the same has to be treated as war injury.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to dispute
the said fact. Once, the injury was sustained by respondent No.1 while
serving in operation 'RHINO' and the said injury is covered to be treated as
a war injury, the grant of War Injury Pension to him by the Tribunal, in the
facts and circumstances of the present case, cannot be said to be arbitrary,
illegal or without any justification.
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
2 of 4
CWP-35073-2025 (3)
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
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. 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
3 of 4
CWP-35073-2025 (4)
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.
9. 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) and Reet MP Singh's case
(supra).
10. Keeping in view the settled principle of law settled in Ram
Avtar's case (supra) and Reet MP Singh's case (supra) as well as the facts
and circumstances of the present case rounding off the disability is
permissible.
11. No other argument has been raised.
12. Hence, in the absence of any perversity being pointed out in the
impugned order dated 10.04.2024 (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.
13. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
14. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
( HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI )
JUDGE
( VIKAS SURI )
November 27, 2025 JUDGE
harish
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable No
4 of 4
