[2025:RJ-JP:44997-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7614/2025 1. Union Of India, Represented By Secretary, Ministry Of Defence, South Block New Delhi- 110011 2. Principal Controller Of Defence Accounts, Draupadi Ghat, Allahabad (Up), Pin - 211014. 3. The Oic Records, Aoc Records, Secunderabad - 15 ----Petitioners Versus Jc 728652F Ex Sub Ram Pal Singh S/o Late Shri Makhan Ram, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Village And Post- Kithana, Tehsil- Chirawa, District- Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan) ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aniket Vyas, Adv. For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Order 10/11/2025 (Oral) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that AFT has now released disability pension to the respondent. 2. The issue is no more res-integra in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bijender Singh v. Union of India and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 895, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:- “32.1. Thus, what Rule 5 says is that the question of entitlement to casualty pensionary awards and evaluation of disabilities shall be based on the presumption that the concerned member was in sound physical and mental condition while entering service except as to physical disabilities noted or recorded at the time of entrance. It is also to be presumed that in the event of him being [2025:RJ-JP:44997-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-7614/2025] discharged from service on medical grounds, any deterioration in his health which has taken place is due to service. 33. As per Rule 9, the onus of proof is on the authority and not on the claimant. Rule 9 specifically says that a member who is declared disabled from service shall not be required to prove his entitlement to pension and such benefit is to be given more liberally. Rule 9 is extracted hereunder: Onus of Proof 9. The claimant shall not be called upon to prove the conditions of entitlements. He/she will receive the benefit of any reasonable doubt. This benefit will be given more liberally to the claimants in field/afloat service cases. 34. Rule 14(b) is also relevant. It reads as follows: Diseases 14. In respect of diseases, the following rule will be observed: (a) *** *** *** *** (b) A disease which has led to an individual's discharge or death will ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in service, if no note of it was made at the time of the individual's acceptance for military service. However, if medical opinion holds, for reasons to be stated, that the disease could not have been 20 detected on medical examination prior to acceptance for service, the disease will not be deemed to have arisen during service. (c) *** *** *** *** 34.1. Rule 14(b) provides for a legal presumption that a disease which has led to an individual’s discharge or death will ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in service if no note of it was made at the time of the individual’s acceptance of military service. However, if the medical opinion says that the disease could not have been detected on medical examination before entering military service, then such a disease would not be deemed to have arisen during service provided reasons are recorded.” 3. It also approved the law laid down in Dharamvir Singh vs Union of India, (2013) 7 SCC 316 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- 29. A conjoint reading of various provisions, reproduced above, makes it clear that: 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 [2025:RJ-JP:44997-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-7614/2025] 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 or 30 contributed 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 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. 4. Further after considering the decision in Sukhvinder Singh vs. Union of India (2014) 14 SCC 364, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bijender Singh v. Union of India and others (supra), has held as under:- 44.2. As can be seen from the above, this Court emphasized that the morale of the armed forces requires absolute and undiluted protection. If any injury leads to loss of service without any recompense, this morale would be severely undermined. Further, this Court noticed that there appeared to be no provision authorising the discharge or invaliding out of service where the disability is below 20% which is quite logical. [2025:RJ-JP:44997-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-7614/2025] Therefore, it has been held that where a member of the armed forces is invalided out of service, it perforce has to be assumed that his disability was found to be above 20%. Most important is that this Court after considering the extant Rules and Regulations has held that a disability leading to invaliding out of service would attract grant of 50% disability pension. 5. Keeping in view the above, the present Civil Writ Petition stands dismissed. 6. All pending application(s) also stand disposed of. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ HEENA/MAHIMA/5