[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India And Others vs Raj Kumar And Another on 21 January, 2026
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi, Vikas Suri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
110 CWP-1320-2026 (O&M)
Decided on : 21.01.2026
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
. .Petitioners
Versus
Ex. HAV RAJ KUMAR AND ANOTHER . . . Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
PRESENT: Mr. N. K. Vashist, Senior Panel Counsel
for the petitioners.
****
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)
1. In the present petition, challenge is to the impugned order dated
01.05.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2-Armed Forces
Tribunal, Regional Bench Chandigarh (in short, 'the Tribunal') by which,
respondent No.1 has been allowed the benefit of disability element of
disability pension alongwith benefit of rounding off of the disability element
of disability pension from 30 % to 50% for life, from the day next to the
date of his discharge from service i.e. 01.01.2001.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon the
report of medical examination of the respondent No. 1 to hold that though
the disability of Seronegative Spondylo Arthropathy has been found to be
existing in respondent No.1, but initially, the said disability was assessed by
the Medical Board @ 30% for two years and the same was held to be
aggravated by the military service but thereafter the Re-Survery Medical
Board has assessed the said disability suffered by the respondent No. 1 @
30% for life and the same was assessed as to be 'neither attributable to
Military Service nor aggravated by the Military service' and hence, the
grant of benefit of disability pension to respondent No. 1 by placing reliance
upon the judgment of Tribunal inDharamvir Singh vs. Union of India and
others, (2013) 7 SCC 316 and
1 of 7
CWP-1320-2026 (O&M)
Union of India and others vs. Ram Avtar, 2014 SCC Online SC 1761 , is
arbitrary and illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that
even the benefit of rounding off of disability pension has been wrongly
granted to respondent No. 1.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have
gone through the case file with his able assistance.
4. It is a conceded fact that at the time when respondent No.1 was
discharged from service on 31.12.2000, he had already rendered
approximately 25 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 25.06.1975, he was medically examined and was found not to
be suffering from any such disease and was found to be medically fit and at
the time of his discharge, he was found to be suffering from disability of
Seronegative Spondylo Arthropathy The said fact had been made the basis
by the Tribunal while granting benefit to the respondent No.1 by placing
reliance upon the judgment of in Dharamvir Singh 's case (Supra) and
Ram Avtar's case (Supra)
5. Qua grievance of petitioners qua grant of benefit of disability
element of disability pension to respondent No.1, It should be noted that as
per judgment in Dharamvir Singh vs. Union of India and others, (2013) 7
SCC 316 . in a case where army personnel is found to be fit at the time of
enrolment, and has later been found to be contracted with a disease, same is
presumed to have been contracted with during the time such personnel was
rendering service in military and as such same is to be attributed to military
service or be regarded as having been aggravated by military service. And
the said presumption in favour of army personnel emerges from Rule 5 and
9 of the "Entitlement Rules for Causality Pensionary Awards, 1982', which
2 of 7
CWP-1320-2026 (O&M)
gives the benefit of presumption of such in favour of army personnel. 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 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, nonapplication 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
3 of 7
CWP-1320-2026 (O&M)
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 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."
6. 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 Union of
India and others vs. Ram Avtar, 2014 SCC Online SC 1761, wherein it has
been held that an Armed Forces personnel is entitled to be granted the benefit
of rounding off with regard to disability pension, irrespective of the fact that
4 of 7
CWP-1320-2026 (O&M)
he was invalidated out of service, or retired on attaining the age of
superannuation or on completion of his tenure of his engagement, if found to
be suffering from some disability which is attributable or aggravated by the
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 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."
5 of 7
CWP-1320-2026 (O&M)
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 Dharamvir Singh's case (supra) & 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% for life.
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
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 so as to grant the disability pension
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 Dharamvir Singh's case
(supra), Ram Avtar's case (supra) as well as Reet MP Singh case (supra),
once at the time of enrolment, respondent No.1 was medically examined and
was found to be fit in all aspects and it was only during his service period
that respondent No.1 was found to be suffering from disability of
Seronegative Spondylo Arthropathy 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%.
10. No further arguments raised.
11. Hence, in the absence of any perversity being pointed out in the
impugned order dated 01.05.2023 (Annexure P-1) either on the basis of the
6 of 7
CWP-1320-2026 (O&M)
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 )
JUDGE
21.01.2026
Riya
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
7 of 7
