[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India And Others vs Ex Lnk Raj Kumar And Anr on 27 January, 2026
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi, Vikas Suri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
226 CWP-33963-2024 (O&M)
Decided on : 27.01.2026
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Petitioners
Versus
EX LNK RAJ KUMAR AND ANR . . . Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
PRESENT: Mr. Angad Parmar, Advocate for
Mr. Maheshinder Singh Sidhu, Advocate
for the petitioners- UOI.
Mr. Arshit Goel, Advocate and
Mr. Ajay Sheoran, Advocate for the respondents.
****
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)
1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order
dated 11.02.2019 (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 along with the benefit of rounding off of the disability
element of disability pension from 45% to 50% for life w.e.f. 01.09.2011 for
life.
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 "(i) CVA with HEMIPARESIS (20%)" "(ii) PRIMARY
HYPERTENSION (30%)" has been found to be existing in respondent No.1,
but initially, the said disability was assessed by the Medical Board @ 45%
(composite) for life and the same was assessed as to be 'neither attributable
1 of 8
CWP-33963-2024 (O&M)
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 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 parties and have gone
through the case file with their able assistance.
4. It is conceded fact that respondent No.1 was enrolled in Army
on 26.10.1978 and discharged on 30.09.1998 under the provisions of Army
Rules after rendering 19 years 11 months and 16 days of service. It is also a
conceded fact that thereafter, the respondent No.1 re-enrolled in DSC on
27.08.2001 and was discharged on 31.08.2011. It is also a conceded fact that
at the time when respondent No.1 discharged from service on 31.08.2011, he
had already rendered more than 10 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, he was medically examined and was found not
to be suffering from any such disease on the basis of which he has been
allowed the benefit of disability pension and the said fact has been made the
basis by the Tribunal while granting benefit to the respondent No.1 by
placing reliance upon Dharamvir Singh'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
2 of 8
CWP-33963-2024 (O&M)
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
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
3 of 8
CWP-33963-2024 (O&M)
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 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."
4 of 8
CWP-33963-2024 (O&M)
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
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
5 of 8
CWP-33963-2024 (O&M)
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 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 45% 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. Further, with regards to the grievance raised that respondent
No.1 had served in the DSC for more than 10 years and is not entitled for the
disability pension, qua said aspect, it is relevant to refer to a verdict rendered
by the learned Tribunal concerned in case Original Application No.324 of
2016 titled as Om Parkash Guleria Vs. Union of India and others, decided
on 10.08.2018, wherein a similar question was put forth before the Tribunal
concerned, that 'whether the applicant who was in receipt of army pension at
the time of his re-enrollment in the DSC, is entitled to the disability pension
6 of 8
CWP-33963-2024 (O&M)
in the DSC service also?. The learned Tribunal concerned after considering
the relevant regulations observed that in terms of Regulation 179 of the
Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, the applicant was entitled to
disability pension consisting of service element as well as disability element.
Further, the Tribunal also observed that the mere fact that the applicant was
in receipt of pension of his first spell of Army service does not disentitle him
to became an able recipient of the component of disability pension thus for
the second spell of service in the DSC. The said verdict was challenged by
the Union of India before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was
upheld by the Apex Court in its verdict rendered in case titled as Union Of
India & Ors. Vs. Om Prakash Guleria, decided on 27.08.2021, to which
Civil Appeal No. (Diary No. 9346 of 2021) became assigned. The relevant
paragraphs, as occur in the said verdict are extracted hereinafter
"2. Besides the delay of 515 days in filing the appeal, which
has not been satisfactorily explained, even on merits, we find no
error in the judgment dated 10 August 2021 of the Armed Forces
Tribunal. The Tribunal has correctly construed the provisions of
the pension regulations and the ultimate conclusion, entitling the
respondent to the service element of the disability pension and
the benefit of rounding off, does not suffer from any error.
3. The Civil Appeal is, therefore, dismissed on the ground of
delay as well as on merits."
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
(supra), Ram Avtar's case (supra) and Reet M.P. Singh's case (supra) as
7 of 8
CWP-33963-2024 (O&M)
well as Om Prakash Guleria's case (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 "(i) CVA with HEMIPARESIS" "(ii) PRIMARY
HYPERTENSION "(composite 45%). 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 as per the
settled principle of law settled in Ram Avtar's case (supra).
11. Hence, in the absence of any perversity being pointed out in the
impugned order dated 11.02.2019 (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 )
JUDGE
27.01.2026
Riya
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
8 of 8
