Union Of India Through Secretary vs Naik Nahar Singh
2026 Latest Caselaw 5070 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Union Of India Through Secretary vs Naik Nahar Singh on 22 May, 2026

Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi

Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                              CHANDIGARH


                     108                                   CWP-16200-2026 (O&M)
                                                           Decided on :22.05.2026



                     UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS                                 ...Petitioners


                                                     Versus


                     NAIK NAHAR SINGH AND ANOTHER                              . . Respondents

                     CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
                            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA


                     PRESENT: Mr. Ashish Chaudhary, Advocate,
                              Senior Panel Counsel for the petitioners-UOI.

                                   ****

                     HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned orders

dated 29.03.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2 - Armed

Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the

Tribunal), by which, instead of the benefit of disability pension, the benefit

of War Injury pension by rounding off the disability element @ 75% as

against 50% w.e.f. 01.12.2006 has been granted in favour of respondent

No.1.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the

respondent No. 1 was posted with I PARA Regiment in Operation PAWAN

(Sri Lanka), which is to be considered as operational duty but the disability

suffered by respondent No. 1 i.e. PERFORATING INJURY (LT) EYE ICD

NO N-871, E-917' @50 % is due to the bushes of the tree, which hit on his

CWP-16200-2026 (O&M)

eye, hence, the said injury/disability cannot be treated as attributable to the

Military Service as the respondent No.1 should have been careful while

discharging the duties in an operational zone and hence, the same cannot be

treated as battle causality/injury. Learned counsel for the petitioners

further submits that even the benefit of rounding off of war injury pension

has been wrongly granted to respondent No. 1.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have

gone through the case file with his able assistance.

4. It is very unfortunate to note that the petitioners-Union of India

has termed an injury suffered by a soldier in a jungle in an operational area

while being posted in a peace keeping force in Sri Lanka not to be attributed

to the military service.

5. A soldier who was searching for terrorists in a jungle sustained

injuries in the eyes due to bushes and branches of the trees, the contention

of the petitioners- Union of India that the said injury cannot be attributed to

military service, cannot be accepted. The injury, namely "PERFORATING

INJURY (LT) EYE ICD NO. N-871, E-917," resulting in 50% disability, was

admittedly suffered by respondent No. 1 in a jungle situated in an

operational area in Sri Lanka which is a peace keeping force. Therefore, the

injury suffered by respondent No. 1 is not only attributable to military

service, but it was also assessed to have occurred while performing bona fide

military duty. Once this fact has been conceded, it cannot be contended that

the injury suffered by respondent No. 1 did not occur during the performance

of duties in an operational area so as not to treat the same as suffered in an

operational area to be treated as war injury, especially when the duties in the

operational area were being carried out pursuant to orders issued by the

CWP-16200-2026 (O&M)

Government of India.

6. Hence keeping in view these facts, coupled with the instructions

dated 31.01.2001 which have been issued by the Government of India, the

injury suffered by respondent No.1 is to be treated under category E(i), which

is reproduced as under:-

"Category E

"PART II-PENSIONARY BENEFITS ON DEATH/DISABILITY IN ATTRIBUTABLE/ AGGRAVATED CASES. 4.1 For determining the pensionary benefits for death or disability under different circumstances due to attributable/aggravated causes, the cases will be broadly categorized as follows:-

Category A xxx tegory B xxxx Category C xxxx Category D xxxx Category E Death or disability arising as a result of:-

a to h : x x x x x i. Operations specially notified by the Government from time to time."

7. A bare perusal of the above would show that the injury suffered

by the respondent No. 1 is to be treated as attributable to military service

while being posted with I PARA Regiment in Operation PAWAN (Sri

Lanka). That being so, the claim for the grant of war injury pension will be

covered under category E (i) of said instructions, which stipulates the

situations as to when the benefit of war injury pension is to be granted as has

been granted by the Tribunal.

8. Further, with regard to the grievance of petitioners qua the

CWP-16200-2026 (O&M)

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

concept of rounding-off of the disability pension are dismissed,

CWP-16200-2026 (O&M)

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."

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) to the effect that percentage of

disability is to be rounded off and in the present case, the disability of 50% is

to be rounded off to 75% for life.

10 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.

11. Keeping in view the facts and circumstance of the present case

as well as the settled principle of law settled in 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 'PERFORATING INJURY (LT) EYE

ICD NO N-871, E-917' that being so, the said disability has to be attributed

to the military service and therefore, Tribunal has rightly been granted the

benefit of war injury pension to the respondent No. 1 and that too by

CWP-16200-2026 (O&M)

rounding off his disability from 50% to 75%.

12. No further arguments raised.

13. Hence, in the absence of any perversity being pointed out in the

impugned order dated 29.03.2022 (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.

14. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE

( DEEPAK MANCHANDA ) JUDGE 22.05.2026 Riya Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No