HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP(C) No.898/2024 Pronounced on: 03.03.2026 Uploaded on: 06.03.2026 Union of India and others ....Petitioner(s) Through:- Mr. Vikas Sharma, Sr. Panel Counsel, UOI Versus Amrik Singh ...Respondent(s) Through:- Mr. Arjun Bhatia, Advocate Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE ORDER 1. In the instant case, the respondent was enrolled in Army on 7th March, 1995 and was discharged from service on 31st May, 2017 in Low Medical Category after rendering 22 years, 02 months and 25 days service. During service, the respondent incurred two disabilities i.e. “Primary Hypertension” and “Fracture Head of Fibula with LCL Sprain with consolidate second fracture (Rt) with PCL tear (Rt) (S-82)”. The Release Medical Board assessed the disabilities @ 30% and 40% , respectively for life. The composite disabilities suffered by the respondent were assessed as 60% for life. However, the disability No.(ii) i.e. Fracture head of Fibula with LCL Sprain WP(C) No.898/2024 2 with Consolidated Second Fracture (RT) with PCL Tear (RT) was regarded as attributable to military, whereas disability “Primary Hypertension” has been regarded as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service for the reason that the onset of the disease was in peace area. Accordingly, disability pension was granted to the respondent with respect to disability No.(ii) @ 40% with the benefit of rounding off to 50% for life. However, claim of the respondent for disability pension with respect to disability “Primary Hypertension” was rejected. 2. The issue raised in this petition is squarely covered by our judgment dated 13.11.2025 titled Union of India and others v. Nirman Singh Jamwal (WP© No.3173/2023 and clubbed matters) in which this Court has already held that the disability “Primary Hypertension” is aggravated by the Army service and ,therefore, a person invalided out of Army service on account of such disability cannot be held disentitled to the disability element of the pension on the ground that such disability is neither attributable to nor aggravated by army service. 3. The Armed Forces Tribunal has disagreed with the stand of the petitioners and has held the respondent entitled to disability element of pension @75% for both the disabilities, incurred by the respondent, during his service in the army. WP(C) No.898/2024 3 4. Since the issue has already been considered by this Court in detail in WP(C) 3173/2023 along with connected matters (supra), nothing survives for adjudication in this petition. 5. This petition is found to be devoid of any merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (Sanjay Parihar) (Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Judge JAMMU 03.03.2026 Vinod, Secy Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No Vinod Kumar 2026.03.06 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document