114 UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS RAJ SINGH CORAM: Present: HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) 1. dated 03.05.2024 Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh, ( for short, ‘the Tribunal’) which, respondent No.1 has been allowed the benefit of disability on the ground that the same is perverse. 2. No.1 had joined the service on 15.10.1980 and was discharged on 30.11.199 “BILATERAL SENSORY NEURAL HEARING LOSS (NOISE INDUCED”, to be “neither attributable hence, the grant of benefit of disability pension to respondent No.1 by placing reliance upon the judgment of Tribunal in Union of India and ors. (2013) 7 SCC 316, the benefit of rounding off of di IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-11021 Date of Decision : UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS VERSUS RAJ SINGH AND ANOTHER CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Mr. Rohit Verma, Advocate for the HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order 03.05.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2 Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh, ( for short, ‘the Tribunal’) respondent No.1 has been allowed the benefit of pension along with the benefit of rounding off on the ground that the same is perverse. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.1 had joined the service on 15.10.1980 and was discharged on 30.11.1996 and since the disability suffered by the respondent No.1 “BILATERAL SENSORY NEURAL HEARING LOSS (NOISE INDUCED”, was assessed at 20%for life, to be “neither attributable to nor aggravated by the hence, the grant of benefit of disability pension to respondent No.1 by placing reliance upon the judgment of Tribunal in Union of India and ors. (2013) 7 SCC 316, the benefit of rounding off of disability pension has been wrongly granted to IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 11021-2026 Date of Decision : 10.04.2026 ........Petitioners VERSUS ........Respondent HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI DEEPAK MANCHANDA Advocate for the petitioners. HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) challenge is to the impugned order 1) passed by respondent No.2-Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh, ( for short, ‘the Tribunal’), respondent No.1 has been allowed the benefit of disability element of pension along with the benefit of rounding off from 20% to 50% Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.1 had joined the service on 15.10.1980 and was discharged on 6 and since the disability suffered by the respondent No.1 “BILATERAL SENSORY NEURAL HEARING LOSS (NOISE was assessed at 20%for life, but the same has been assessed as 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 in Dharamvir Singh vs. Union of India and ors. (2013) 7 SCC 316, is arbitrary and illegal and even sability pension has been wrongly granted to HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI challenge is to the impugned order Armed Forces by element of % to 50%, Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.1 had joined the service on 15.10.1980 and was discharged on 6 and since the disability suffered by the respondent No.1 “BILATERAL SENSORY NEURAL HEARING LOSS (NOISE but the same has been assessed as and hence, the grant of benefit of disability pension to respondent No.1 by Dharamvir Singh vs. is arbitrary and illegal and even sability pension has been wrongly granted to SAPNA GOYAL 2026.04.18 11:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11021-2026 -2- respondent No.1 in terms of Union of India and others vs. Ram Avtar, 2014 SCC Online SC 1761. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the case file with his able assistance. 4. As per the principle settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Dharamvir Singh versus Union of India and others, (2013) 7 SCC 316, any officer serving in the Armed Forces, who had undergone the medical examination at the time of his/her selection and was not found to be suffering from any such disease at that time on the basis of which, he/she has been discharged from service, such an employee is entitled for the benefit of presumption in his/her favour as per Rule 5 and 9 of ‘Entitlement Rules for Causality Pensionary Awards, 1982’ that the said disability has been suffered by the employee during his service career and is, thus, entitled for the benefit of disability pension. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment 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, non-application 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 ” 31. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 32. In spite of the aforesaid provisions, the Pension Sanctioning Authority failed to notice that the Medical Board.” SAPNA GOYAL 2026.04.18 11:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11021-2026 -3- 5. 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 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.” 6. 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 SAPNA GOYAL 2026.04.18 11:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11021-2026 -4- disability is to be rounded off and in the preset case, the disability of 20% is to be rounded off to 50% for life. 7. 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), has again reiterated that the benefit of rounding off the disability element cannot be denied. 8. 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 MP Singh’s case (supra), respondent No.1 has rightly been held to be entitled to disability element of disability pension by rounding off from 20% to 50%. 9. No other argument has been raised. 10. Hence, in the absence of any perversity being pointed out in the impugned order 03.05.2024 (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 cases and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 11. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE 10-04-2026 Sapna Goyal (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/ reasoned: YES Whether reportable: NO SAPNA GOYAL 2026.04.18 11:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document