149 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Union of India No.4468153 Ex. Sepoy Amrik Singh & Anr. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE Present: M ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA 1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 01.03.2024 Chandigarh, in OA No. entitled to grant of disability pension @ 50% as against relying upon the Appeal No. 418 of 2012 SCC Online SC 1761. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the suffered by respondent No.1 is neither attributable nor aggravated by military service and thus, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 3. The issue raised in the present writ petition is no more integra in view of the case of Bijender Singh v. Union of India and others, 2025 SSC OnLine IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-15757 Date of Decision: 05.08.2025 Union of India and others Vs. No.4468153 Ex. Sepoy Amrik Singh & Anr. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY Mr. Sushant Kareer, Advocate for the *** ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA J. (Oral) The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order 01.03.2024, passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh, in OA No.1278of 2021, whereby the original applicant was held entitled to grant of disability pension @ 50% as against relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court render Appeal No. 418 of 2012 titled as Union of India and Others SCC Online SC 1761. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the suffered by respondent No.1 is neither attributable nor aggravated by military service and thus, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set The issue raised in the present writ petition is no more in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Bijender Singh v. Union of India and others, 2025 SSC OnLine IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 15757-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 05.08.2025 …Petitioners …Respondents ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA AARADHNA SAWHNEY , Advocate for the petitioners. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, , whereby the original applicant was held entitled to grant of disability pension @ 50% as against 30% for life, by judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Civil Union of India and Others Vs. Ram Avtar ; Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the disability suffered by respondent No.1 is neither attributable nor aggravated by military service and thus, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set The issue raised in the present writ petition is no more res- judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Bijender Singh v. Union of India and others, 2025 SSC OnLine The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, , whereby the original applicant was held , by Civil ; disability suffered by respondent No.1 is neither attributable nor aggravated by military service and thus, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set - judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Bijender Singh v. Union of India and others, 2025 SSC OnLine RAJESH KUMAR 2025.08.18 12:44 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-15757-2025 (O&M) [2] SC 895, wherein after considering the judgments in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India (2013) 7 SCC 316 and Union of India vs. Rajbir Singh (2015) 12 SCC 264, and while dealing with Rule 5, 9 and 14 of the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982, held as under:- “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 contrary made 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. RAJESH KUMAR 2025.08.18 12:44 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-15757-2025 (O&M) [3] 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. 47. Thus having regard to the discussions made above, we are of the considered view that the impugned orders of the Tribunal are wholly unsustainable in law. That being the position, impugned orders dated 22.01.2018 and 26.02.2016 are hereby set aside. Consequently, respondents are directed to grant the disability element of disability RAJESH KUMAR 2025.08.18 12:44 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-15757-2025 (O&M) [4] pension to the appellant at the rate of 50% with effect from 01.01.1996 onwards for life. The arrears shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum till payment. The above directions shall be carried out by the respondents within three months from today.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show any perversity or illegality in the finding of the Tribunal. The factum of disability is not in dispute. Even otherwise, the controversy raised in the matter stands recently adjudicated by our composite order dated 28.07.2025 passed in Union of India and Others Vs. Col. B.S. Bisht and Another; CWP-20253-2025 and Union of India and Others Vs. IC-41068W Maj. Gen. Anil Chaudhary (Retd.) and Another; CWP-20287-2025 and connected cases. Once that being so, this Court finds no good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of the Tribunal. 5. In that view of the matter, we do not intend to interfere with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. 6. All pending misc. application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA) JUDGE (AARADHNA SAWHNEY) JUDGE 05.08.2025 rajesh 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? : Yes/No RAJESH KUMAR 2025.08.18 12:44 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.