2025:HHC:38617-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 8952 of 2013 Date of decision: 12.11.2025 Jagtar Singh …Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India with Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate. G. S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral) The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 17.10.2012, passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh Regional Bench at Chandimandir, whereby the petition filed by the present writ petitioner was dismissed on the ground that he was not entitled for disability pension as disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service and the percentage of the disability was ‘nil’. 2. It was noted that petitioner was recruited in the year, 2000 and having joined service on 30.04.2000 and the invaliding Medical Board showed that he was admitted in hospital on 19.05.2000, within three weeks of his recruitment and about two weeks of his training and, therefore, it has been held that nature 2 2025:HHC:38617-DB of disability could not be held to be attributable to or aggravated by military service and, therefore, he was invalided out from service on 21.08.2000. It is pertinent to notice that petitioner was suffering from Hernia and against the order dated 21.08.2000, he had served a legal notice on 27.06.2001 for the said claim, and the same had been replied on 20.11.2001 that he had been discharged by a duly constituted and Invaliding Medical Board and the disability assessed was ‘nil’ and neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. 3. The claim of the petitioner for disability pension was rejected way back on 16.02.2002 and the writ petition only came to be filed in the year, 2009 after a period of seven years and eventually was transferred to the Tribunal under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. In our considered opinion, even the challenge as such to the order was at a belated stage, though that is not one of the reasons, the Tribunal as such had dismissed the petition. 4. The reason, as such, as noticed is justified as within three weeks of the training period itself and the petitioner never even having been posted at a difficult station, could not have said that disease as such was attributable to or aggravated by military service. The Tribunal also noticed that the specialist opinion was that the said disease existed before enrollment. 3 2025:HHC:38617-DB 5. Counsel for Union of India has placed on record copy of the opinion of the Medical Board, whereby it has been mentioned that disability was present before enrollment. The expert opinion as such has come that the person was already suffering from disease and the decision of the Tribunal as such is not liable to be interfered with in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction, as it does not suffer from any inherent defect or lack of jurisdiction. 6. Reliance upon Satwinder Singh vs. Union of India & Ors., 2016 (12) SCC 275, would go to show that in the said case the person was suffering from schizophrenia and had worked at Siddar on the Indo-Pak International Border and had fallen sick due to stressful nature of duties and in such circumstances the observations have followed from the Apex Court to allow disability pension. 7. In Sukhvinder Singh vs. Union of India, (2014) 14 SCC 364, the appellant had been hit on the ear by the Instructor in the Training Centre and in such circumstances the benefit of disability pension had been granted. 8. In Ex. Hav Mani Ram Bhaira vs. Union of India & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 4409 of 2011, decided on 11.02.2016, the issue was of the ex-serviceman having a Bilateral PVD (Lower Limb) with disability as such 30% for life and in such circumstances, the benefit was granted by coming to 4 2025:HHC:38617-DB the conclusion that the soldier cannot be asked to prove the disease contracted on account of military service and the burden lies on the Union of India to disconnect between the disease with the military service. The expert opinion having come on record, the burden has been adequately discharged by the Union of India, in the present case. 9. In Santosh Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., 2007 Latest HLJ (H.P.) 329, the Coordinate Bench had granted the benefits as such was granted by going into the facts of each case and by noting that in the case of Santosh Kumar, who was a patient of schizophrenia, he had remained posted in Ladakh in hard and difficult conditions and thereafter at Amritsar, where terrorists operations were in full swing and therefore, there was huge stress and strain in these places. However, in the other case also, the petitioner was suffering from same disease and was posted at the headquarters of the BSF Signal Regiment, Calcutta and resultantly it was being a desk job, his petition has been rejected. The said observations are directly against the present petitioner. 10. In the case of ex-Sepoy Rati Ram, which was discussed he had been invalided from service on account of disease ‘Pemphigus Vulgaris’, which is a skin disease and, therefore, it was also held that the said disease could not be held attributable to Army service. 5 2025:HHC:38617-DB 11. In another case, the petitioner was suffering from “Traumatic Canrunctivis”. Resultantly, it was also held that the constituted Medical Board gave its opinion that the disability is neither aggravated nor attributable to military service. 12. Another instance was of the case of “Hysterical Aphonia”, whereby an Army man was getting psychotropic treatment and had served for 10 years in the field service in Assam, Jammu & Kashmir, Bangladesh and Muthi in J & K and resultantly, he was held entitled for disability pension. 13. Thus, apparently, the facts of each case have to be examined and we have also noticed the same in the judgment in case of ex Sepoy Devinder Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. 2008(1) SLR 19, which would also go on to show that it was a case of “Neurosis” (Hysterical reaction) and in such circumstances, the benefit as such has been granted. 14. Reliance upon the judgment in Dharamvir Singh vs. Union of India & Ors., (2013) 7 SCC 316, as such would also go on to show that there was observation that there is a presumption of sound physical and mental condition at the time of entry in the armed forces. In the said case, nine years of service had been rendered and the ex-serviceman was suffering from “generalised seizure (epilepsy)” before he had been boarded out of the service. In such circumstances, the Apex Court has come to the conclusion that he was in sound physical 6 2025:HHC:38617-DB and mental condition at the time of entry into service and deterioration in his health had taken place due to service. 15. As noticed in the present case, it is the initial stage during the training of three weeks, the petitioner had been boarded out. In such circumstances, none of the judgments are applicable, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 16. Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed, so also pending application(s), if any. (G. S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) 12th November, 2025 Judge (sanjeev)