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 RIYA 2026.01.29 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 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 RIYA 2026.01.29 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 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 RIYA 2026.01.29 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 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.” RIYA 2026.01.29 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5 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 RIYA 2026.01.29 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6 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 RIYA 2026.01.29 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7 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 RIYA 2026.01.29 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 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 RIYA 2026.01.29 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document