[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India And Others vs No 15343689Y Ex Spr Surjeet Singh And ... on 20 February, 2026
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi, Vikas Suri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
113 CWP-5311-2026 (O&M)
Decided on : 20.02.2026
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
. .Petitioners
Versus
EX SPR SURJEET SINGH AND ANOTHER . . . Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
PRESENT: Mr. Ramesh Chand 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 24.01.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2-Armed Forces
Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh, ( hereinafter referred to as 'the
Tribunal') by which, the benefit of disability pension has been allowed in
favour of respondent No.1 that too by rounding off of the disability element
of disability pension @ 50%, which was initially assessed at less than 20%
(10%) for life.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent
No.1 joined the service on 19.09.2002 and was discharged from service on
31.07.2019 in low medical category H-2 (permanent) due to the disease
'Chronic Otitis Media (LT) (OPTD)" and the said disability was assessed
less than 20% (10%) for life by the Medical Board vide proceedings dated
27.05.2019 and the same was assessed as attributable to military service and
therefore, as the disability was not assessed upto 20%, which is a condition
precedent for the grant of disability pension, the Tribunal exceeded its
jurisdiction while granting the said relief to respondent No.1.
1 of 4
CWP-5311-2026 (O&M)
3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone
through the record with his able assistance.
4. It is a conceded fact that the disability of 'Chronic Otitis Media
(LT) (OPTD)', which was suffered by respondent No.1 while being in
service, has already been held to be attributable to the military service by the
Medical Board. Even otherwise, as per the settled principle of law settled in
Civil Appeal No.5605 of 2010 decided on 25.06.2014 titled Sukhvinder
Singh vs. Union of India and others, the disability suffered by any army
personnel even if the same is assessed at less than 20% but the same leads to
such circumstances where personnel concerned cannot discharge the duties
assigned to him/her and has to be relieved from duty, such a disability is to
be treated minimum of 20% so as to grant the benefit of disability pension to
such a personnel concerned and said disability of 20% has rightly been
rounded off to 50% keeping in view the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in Union of India and others vs. Ram Avtar, 2014 SCC
Online SC 1761.
5. For better adjudication of matter in hand, certain facts need to be
taken into consideration that 1st the Medical Board assessed the disability
suffered by respondent No.1 @ 10% for life and as attributable to military
service, but the claim of respondent No.1 was rejected on the ground that
same is below the minimum threshold of 20% after which another claim
raised by respondent No.1 for grant of disability pension got rejected on
same ground.
6. On being asked whether, with the disability from which
respondent No.1 suffered and on the basis of which he got discharged from
service, the personnel concerned could have continued in service performing
2 of 4
CWP-5311-2026 (O&M)
the duties without any hindrance, learned counsel for the petitioners has not
been able to rebut the said aspect that while suffering with the said
disability, the officer could not have continued in service. Once, the officer
concerned could not continue in service due to the aforementioned disability,
the only option available was that either he should be invalidated out of
service or the officer should get relieved from service. Once, the reason for
being relieved from service is the disability incurred during the service
period which disability has been assessed as attributable to military service,
the claim of the petitioner that the benefit of disability pension could not be
granted to respondent No.1, cannot be accepted. The said injury has been
made basis of being relieved from service, which injury is concededly
attributable to the military service.
7. It should be noted that the present issue has already been dealt
with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sukhvinder Singh's case
(supra) according to which, any injury, which led to being invalidated from
service of an army personnel is assessed at less than 20%, for the purpose of
the grant of disability pension, the same has to be treated as a minimum of
20%. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is as under:
9. We are of the persuasion, therefore, that firstly, any disability
not recorded at the time of recruitment must be presumed to have
been caused subsequently and unless proved to the contrary to be
a consequence of military service. The benefit of doubt is rightly
extended in favour of the member of the Armed Forces; any other
conclusion would be tantamount to granting a premium to the
Recruitment Medical Board for their own negligence. Secondly,
the morale of the Armed Forces requires absolute and undiluted
protection and if an injury leads to loss of service without any
recompense, this morale would be severely undermined. Thirdly,
there appears to be no provisions authorising the discharge or
3 of 4
CWP-5311-2026 (O&M)
invaliding out of service where the disability is below twenty per
cent and seems to us to be logically so. Fourthly, wherever a
member of the Armed Forces is invalided out of service, it
perforce has to be assumed that his disability was found to be
above twenty per cent. Fifthly, as per the extant
Rules/Regulations, a disability leading to invaliding out of
service would attract the grant of fifty per cent disability
pension."
8. Further, as per the settled principle of law settled by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in Ram Avtar's case (supra), disability element of
disability pension is assessed @ 20%, the same is to be rounded off to 50%,
which is a settled principle of law, which has not been rebutted by the
learned counsel for the petitioners.
9. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, the impugned
order dated 24.01.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Tribunal, keeping in
view the facts and circumstances of the present case coupled with the settled
principle of law, has not been shown to be perverse in any manner. Hence, no
ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the facts and
circumstances of the present case and the present petition is accordingly
dismissed.
10. Civil miscellaneous application pending, if any, is also disposed of.
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
JUDGE
(VIKAS SURI )
JUDGE
20.02.2026
Riya
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
