[2025:RJ-JP:44609-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1209/2024 Army No. 1266597N Ex. Hav Jiwan Ram Choudary S/o Sh. Bhoora Ram, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Village And Post Chitawa, Tehsil Kuchamancity, District Nagaur (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India (Through Its Secretary), Ministry Of Defence, New Delhi-11. 2. The PCDA (Pension), Draupadighat, Allahabad, (Up) -211014. 3. The Oic Records, The Artillery Records, Nasik Road Camp, Nasik - 422102. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sumit Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Ms. Manjeet Kaur with Ms. Taruna HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Order 06/11/2025 1. The writ petition assails the order passed by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’), whereby the petitioner was denied the claim for grant of rounding off the pension and the reduction of the disability from 30% to less than 20%. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bijender Singh Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos.4458-4459 of 2024) dated 23.04.2025 which states that if a person has been released on account of disability, he would be entitled to rounding off to 50%. The disability pension cannot be [2025:RJ-JP:44609-DB] (2 of 5) [CW-1209/2024] denied by way of reducing the disability percentage after releasing him from the service. Had the disability been assessed at below 20%, he would not have been allowed to be released from armed forces, as disability below 20% does not envisage release from armed forces. The petitioner, therefore, would be entitled to be treated to the benefit of disability pension at the rate at which he shall be released and the same could not have been reduced to deny him the disability pension. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the law as noticed by the Tribunal reflects that the petitioner’s application was rightly rejected. 4. We have considered the submissions and taken into consideration the law as laid down in the case of Bijender Singh (supra) as pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which reads as under: “45. We have already noticed the analysis of Rules 5, 9 and 14 of the Rules in Rajbir Singh (supra). After adverting to the decision of this Court in Dharamvir Singh (supra), this Court opined as under: 14. The legal position as stated in Dharamvir Singh case is, in our opinion, in tune with the Pension Regulations, the Entitlement Rules and the Guidelines issued to the Medical Officers. The essence of the rules, as seen earlier, is that a member of the armed forces is presumed to be in sound physical and mental condition at the time of his entry into service if there is no note or record to the contrary made at the time of such entry. More importantly, in the event of his subsequent discharge from service on medical ground, any deterioration in his health is presumed to be due to military service. This necessarily implies that no sooner a member of the force is discharged on medical ground his entitlement to claim disability pension will arise unless of course the employer is in a position to rebut the presumption that the disability which he suffered was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. 15. From Rule 14(b) of the Entitlement Rules it is further clear that if the medical opinion were to [2025:RJ-JP:44609-DB] (3 of 5) [CW-1209/2024] hold that the disease suffered by the member of the armed forces could not have been detected prior to acceptance for service, the Medical Board must state the reasons for saying so. Last but not the least is the fact that the provision for payment of disability pension is a beneficial provision which ought to be interpreted liberally so as to benefit those who have been sent home with a disability at times even before they completed their tenure in the armed forces. There may indeed be cases, where the disease waswholly unrelated to military service, but, in order that denial of disability pension can be justified on that ground, it must be affirmatively proved that the disease had nothing to do with such service. The burden to establish such a disconnect would lie heavily upon the employer for otherwise the rules raise a presumption that the deterioration in the health of the member of the service is on account of military service or aggravated by it. A soldier cannot be asked to prove that the disease was contracted by him on account of military service or was aggravated by the same. The very fact that he was upon proper physical and other tests found fit to serve in the army should rise as indeed the rules do provide for a presumption that he was disease-free at the time of his entry into service. That presumption continues till it is proved by the employer that the disease was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. For the employer to say so, the least that is required is a statement of reasons supporting that view. That we feel is the true essence of the rules which ought to be kept in view all the time while dealing with cases of disability pension. 45.1. Thus, this Court held that essence of the Rules is that a member of the armed forces is presumed to be in sound physical and mental condition at the time of his entry into the service if there is no note or record to the contrarymade at the time of such entry. In the event of subsequent discharge from service on medical ground, any deterioration in health would be presumed to be due to military service. The burden would be on the employer to rebut the presumption that the disability suffered by the member was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. If the Medical Board is of the opinion that the disease suffered by the member could not have been detected at the time of entry into service, the Medical Board has to give reasons for saying so. This Court highlighted that the provision for payment of disability pension is a beneficial one which ought to be interpreted liberally. A soldier cannot be asked to prove that the disease was contracted by him on account of military service or was aggravated by the same. The very fact that upon proper physical and other tests, the member was found fit to serve in the army would give rise to a presumption that he was disease free at the time of his entry into service. For the employer to say that such a disease was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, the least that is required to be done is to furnish reasons for taking such a view. [2025:RJ-JP:44609-DB] (4 of 5) [CW-1209/2024] 46. Referring back to the impugned order dated 26.02.2016, we find that the Tribunal simply went by the remarks of the Invaliding Medical Board and Re-Survey Medical Boards to hold that since the disability of the appellant was less than 20%, he would not be entitled to the disability element of the disability pension. Tribunal did not examine the issue as to whether the disability was attributable to or aggravated by military service. In the instant case neither has it been mentioned by the Invaliding Medical Board nor by the Re- Survey Medical Boards that the disease for which the appellant was invalided out of service could not be detected at the time of entry into military service. As a matter of fact, the Invaliding Medical Board was quite categorical that no disability of the appellant existed before entering service. As would be evident from the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the law has by now crystalized that if there is no note or report of the Medical Board at the time of entry into service that the member suffered from any particular disease, the presumption would be that the member got afflicted by the said disease because of military service. Therefore the burden of proving that the disease is not attributable to or aggravated by military service rest entirely on the employer. Further, any disease or disability for which a member of the armed forces is invalided out of service would have to be assumed to be above 20% and attract grant of 50% disability pension.” 5. In Dharmavir Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.4949 of 2013), it was observed as under: 29.1. Disability pension to be granted to an individual who is invalided from service on account of a disability which is attributable to or aggravated by military service in non- battle casualty and is assessed at 20% or over. The question whether a disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service to be determined under the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 of Appendix II (Regulation 173). 29.2. A member is to be presumed in sound physical and mental condition upon entering service if there is no note or record at the time of entrance. In the event of his subsequently being discharged from service on medical grounds any deterioration in his health is to be presumed due to service [Rule 5 read with Rule 14(b)]. 29.3. The onus of proof is not on the claimant (employee), the corollary is that onus of proof that the condition for non- entitlement is with the employer. A claimant has a right to derive benefit of any reasonable doubt and is entitled for pensionary benefit more liberally (Rule 9). 29.4. If a disease is accepted to have been as having arisen in service, it must also be established that the conditions of military service determined orcontributed to the onset of the disease and that the conditions were due to the circumstances of duty in military service [Rule 14(c)]. 29.5. If no note of any disability or disease was made at the time of individual's acceptance for military service, a disease [2025:RJ-JP:44609-DB] (5 of 5) [CW-1209/2024] which has led to an individual's discharge or death will be deemed to have arisen in service [Rule 14(b)]. 29.6. If medical opinion holds that the disease could not have been detected on medical examination prior to the acceptance for service and that disease will not be deemed to have arisen during service, the Medical Board is required to state the reasons [Rule 14(b)]; and 29.7. It is mandatory for the Medical Board to follow the guidelines laid down in Chapter II of the Guide to Medical Officers (Military Pensions), 2002. 6. In view thereto, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is held entitled for rounding off the disability pension at the rate of 50%. The actual arrears shall be calculated and released to the petitioner from 01.01.2016 or from the date application has been filed, whichever is earlier. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ RAHUL MIRKHANI/98