dated 03.03.2025 Tribunal, to as ‘Tribunal’) disability by rounding off the dis ground that the same is perverse. 2. report of medical examination of respondent No.1 to disabilities found in respondent No.1, but the same has been held to be ‘neither attributable to Military Service nor aggravated by the Military service’. said claim for dis Application restricted to Primary Hypertension Hence, the grant of benefit of disability pension to respondent No.1 from In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order 03.03.2025 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No. 2 Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh at to as ‘Tribunal’), by which, respondent No.1 disability by rounding off the disability from 30% to 50% for life ground that the same is perverse. Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon the report of medical examination of respondent No.1 to ies of “Primary Hypertension and ID found in respondent No.1, but the same has been held to be ‘neither attributable to Military Service nor aggravated by the Military service’. said claim for disability pension was rejected. Further an O pplication was filed in which the claim for disability pension was only restricted to Primary Hypertension, which was found to be 30% for life. Hence, the grant of benefit of disability pension to respondent No.1 from In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order ) passed by respondent No. 2-Armed Forces Chandigarh at Chandimandir (hereinafter referred , by which, respondent No.1 has been allowed the benefit of ability from 30% to 50% for life on the Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon the report of medical examination of respondent No.1 to hold that though the and ID-Dyslippidemia” have been found in respondent No.1, but the same has been held to be ‘neither attributable to Military Service nor aggravated by the Military service’. The as rejected. Further an Original was filed in which the claim for disability pension was only which was found to be 30% for life. Hence, the grant of benefit of disability pension to respondent No.1 from In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order Armed Forces (hereinafter referred has been allowed the benefit of on the Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon the hold that though the been found in respondent No.1, but the same has been held to be ‘neither The riginal was filed in which the claim for disability pension was only which was found to be 30% for life. Hence, the grant of benefit of disability pension to respondent No.1 from ANJAL GUPTA 2025.08.25 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 30% to 50% for life by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Bhupinder Singh 3. the report of the Medical Board clearly states that the disabilit respondent No.1 is neither attributed to military service nor aggravated by the military No.1 by rounding it the present case have not been appreciated in correct perspective by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order dated P/3). 5. gone through the case file with her able assistance. 6. premature 30% to 50% for life by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No Bhupinder Singh vs. Union of India and others Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that once, the report of the Medical Board clearly states that the disabilit respondent No.1 is neither attributed to military service nor aggravated by the military service, the grant of benefit of disab by rounding it off from 30% to 50% for life is incorrect and the facts of the present case have not been appreciated in correct perspective by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order dated We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the case file with her able assistance. It is conceded fact that at the time when respondent No.1 ely retired from service on 31. 30% to 50% for life by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Tribunal, 861 of 2022, titled as “Ex. MWO and others”, is incorrect. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that once, the report of the Medical Board clearly states that the disabilities respondent No.1 is neither attributed to military service nor aggravated by service, the grant of benefit of disability pension to respondent from 30% to 50% for life is incorrect and the facts of the present case have not been appreciated in correct perspective by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order dated 03.03.2025 (Annexure We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the case file with her able assistance. It is conceded fact that at the time when respondent No.1 was .12.2018, he had already rendered 30% to 50% for life by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Tribunal, Ex. MWO Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that once, of respondent No.1 is neither attributed to military service nor aggravated by ility pension to respondent from 30% to 50% for life is incorrect and the facts of the present case have not been appreciated in correct perspective by the 03.03.2025 (Annexure We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have was , he had already rendered ANJAL GUPTA 2025.08.25 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document more than conceded fact that on 20.12.1997 from any such disease, on the basis of which, respondent No. 1 has been granted the be covered in his favour for the grant of disability pension as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme of India in relevant para Nos.30, 32 and 33 of the said judgment are as under: more than 21 years of service with the petitioners conceded fact that at the time when respondent No. on 20.12.1997, he was medically examin from any such disease, on the basis of which, respondent No. 1 has been granted the benefit of disability pension. covered in his favour for the grant of disability pension as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme of India in Dharamvir Singh’s relevant para Nos.30, 32 and 33 of the said judgment are as under: 30. In the present case it is undisputed that no note of any disease has been recorded at the time of appellant's acceptance for military service. The respondents have failed to bring on record any document to suggest that the appellant was under treatment for such a disease or by hereditary he is suffering from such disease. In absence of any note in the service record at of joining of appellant it was incumbent on the part of the Medical Board to call for records and look into the same before coming to an opinion that the disease could not have been detected on medical examination prior to the acceptance for military service, but nothing is on the record to suggest that any such record was called for by the Medical Board or looked into it and no reasons have been recorded in writing to come to the conclusion that the disability is not due to military application of mind of Medical Board is apparent from Clause (d) of paragraph 2 of the opinion of the Medical Board, which is as follows: “(d) In the case of a disability under C the board should state what exactly in their opinion i YES Disability is not related to mil service” years of service with the petitioners-Union of India. It is also a at the time when respondent No.1 joined the armed forces , he was medically examined and was not found suffering from any such disease, on the basis of which, respondent No. 1 has been nefit of disability pension. The claim of respondent No.1 is covered in his favour for the grant of disability pension as per the judgment Dharamvir Singh’s case (supra). The relevant para Nos.30, 32 and 33 of the said judgment are as under:- In the present case it is undisputed that no note of any disease has been recorded at the time of appellant's tance for military service. The respondents have failed to bring on record any document to suggest that the appellant was under treatment for such a disease or by hereditary he is suffering from such disease. In absence of any note in the service record at the time of acceptance of joining of appellant it was incumbent on the part of the Medical Board to call for records and look into the same before coming to an opinion that the disease could not have been detected on medical examination prior to the tance for military service, but nothing is on the record to suggest that any such record was called for by the Medical Board or looked into it and no reasons have been recorded in writing to come to the conclusion that the disability is not due to military service. In fact, non application of mind of Medical Board is apparent from Clause (d) of paragraph 2 of the opinion of the Medical Board, which is as follows: “(d) In the case of a disability under C the board should state what exactly in their opinion is the cause thereof. YES Disability is not related to mil service” Union of India. It is also a 1 joined the armed forces ed and was not found suffering from any such disease, on the basis of which, respondent No. 1 has been The claim of respondent No.1 is covered in his favour for the grant of disability pension as per the judgment case (supra). The In the present case it is undisputed that no note of any disease has been recorded at the time of appellant's tance for military service. The respondents have failed to bring on record any document to suggest that the appellant was under treatment for such a disease or by hereditary he is suffering from such disease. In absence the time of acceptance of joining of appellant it was incumbent on the part of the Medical Board to call for records and look into the same before coming to an opinion that the disease could not have been detected on medical examination prior to the tance for military service, but nothing is on the record to suggest that any such record was called for by the Medical Board or looked into it and no reasons have been recorded in writing to come to the conclusion that service. In fact, non- application of mind of Medical Board is apparent from Clause (d) of paragraph 2 of the opinion of the Medical “(d) In the case of a disability under C the board should s the cause thereof. ANJAL GUPTA 2025.08.25 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 32. In spite of the aforesaid provisions, the Pension Sanctioning Authority failed to notice that the Medical Board had not given any reason in support of its opinion, particularly when there is no note of such disease or disability available in the service record of the appellant at the time of acceptance for military service. Without going through the aforesaid facts the Pension Sanctioning Authority mechanically passed the impugned ord rejection based on the report of the Medical Board. As per Rules 5 and 9 of 'Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982', the appellant is entitled for presumption and benefit of presumption in his favour. In absence of any evidence on re appellant was suffering from "Genrealised seizure (Epilepsy)” at the time of acceptance of his service, it will be presumed that the appellant was in sound physical and mental condition at the time of entering the service and deterioration in his health has taken place due to service. 33. As per Rule 423(a) of General Rules for the purpose of determining a question whether the cause of a disability or death resulting from disease is or is not attributable to service, it is immaterial giving rise to the disability or death occurred in an area declared to be a field service/active service area or under normal peace conditions. "Classification of diseases” have been prescribed at Chapter IV of Annexure I; under paragraph 4 post traumatic epilepsy and other mental changes resulting from head injuries have been shown as one of the diseases affected by training, marching, prolonged standing etc. In spite of the aforesaid provisions, the Pension Sanctioning Authority failed to notice that the Medical Board had not given any reason in support of its opinion, there is no note of such disease or disability available in the service record of the appellant at the time of acceptance for military service. Without going through the aforesaid facts the Pension Sanctioning Authority mechanically passed the impugned order of rejection based on the report of the Medical Board. As per Rules 5 and 9 of 'Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982', the appellant is entitled for presumption and benefit of presumption in his favour. In absence of any evidence on record to show that the appellant was suffering from "Genrealised seizure (Epilepsy)” at the time of acceptance of his service, it will be presumed that the appellant was in sound physical and mental condition at the time of entering the service ation in his health has taken place due to As per Rule 423(a) of General Rules for the purpose of determining a question whether the cause of a disability or death resulting from disease is or is not attributable to service, it is immaterial whether the cause giving rise to the disability or death occurred in an area declared to be a field service/active service area or under normal peace conditions. "Classification of diseases” have been prescribed at Chapter IV of Annexure I; under h 4 post traumatic epilepsy and other mental changes resulting from head injuries have been shown as one of the diseases affected by training, marching, prolonged standing etc. In spite of the aforesaid provisions, the Pension Sanctioning Authority failed to notice that the Medical Board had not given any reason in support of its opinion, there is no note of such disease or disability available in the service record of the appellant at the time of acceptance for military service. Without going through the aforesaid facts the Pension Sanctioning er of rejection based on the report of the Medical Board. As per Rules 5 and 9 of 'Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982', the appellant is entitled for presumption and benefit of presumption in his favour. In cord to show that the appellant was suffering from "Genrealised seizure (Epilepsy)” at the time of acceptance of his service, it will be presumed that the appellant was in sound physical and mental condition at the time of entering the service ation in his health has taken place due to As per Rule 423(a) of General Rules for the purpose of determining a question whether the cause of a disability or death resulting from disease is or is not whether the cause giving rise to the disability or death occurred in an area declared to be a field service/active service area or under "Classification of diseases” have been prescribed at Chapter IV of Annexure I; under h 4 post traumatic epilepsy and other mental changes resulting from head injuries have been shown as one of the diseases affected by training, marching, prolonged standing etc. ANJAL GUPTA 2025.08.25 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7. Supreme Court of India in SCC Online SC 1761 undergone the medical examination at the time of his/her selection and was found fit, subsequently upon suffering a disability, is entitled to the benefit of disability pension by rounding off the same as the presumption would be that the disability suff paras of the judgment in Therefore, the presumption would be that the disability of the appellant bore a connection with the service conditions.” Further, as per the settled principle of law settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India and others vs. Ram Avtar SCC Online SC 1761, any officer serving in the Armed Forces, who ha undergone the medical examination at the time of his/her selection and was found fit, subsequently upon suffering a disability, is entitled to the benefit of disability pension by rounding off the same as the presumption would be that the disability suffered is attributable to the Military service. Relevant paras of the judgment in Ram Avtar’scase (supra) are as under: “4. By the present set of appeals the appellant(s) raise the question, whether or not, an individual, who has retired on attaining the on completion of his tenure of engagement, if found to be suffering from some disability which is attributable to or aggravated by the military service, is entitled to be granted the benefit of rounding disability pension. T contend that, on the basis of Circular No. 1(2)/97/D(Pen-C) issued by the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, dated 31.01.2001, the aforesaid benefit is made available only to an Armed Forces Personnel who is invalidated any other category of Armed Forces Personnel mentioned hereinabove. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 6. We do not see any error in the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) and therefore all the appeals Therefore, the presumption would be that the disability of the appellant bore a casual connection with the service conditions.” Further, as per the settled principle of law settled by Hon’ble Union of India and others vs. Ram Avtar, 2014 , any officer serving in the Armed Forces, who ha undergone the medical examination at the time of his/her selection and was found fit, subsequently upon suffering a disability, is entitled to the benefit of disability pension by rounding off the same as the presumption would be ered is attributable to the Military service. Relevant case (supra) are as under:- By the present set of appeals the appellant(s) raise the question, whether or not, an individual, who has retired on attaining the age of superannuation or on completion of his tenure of engagement, if found to be suffering from some disability which is attributable to or aggravated by the military service, is entitled to be granted the benefit of rounding-off of disability pension. The appellant(s) herein would contend that, on the basis of Circular No. C) issued by the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, dated 31.01.2001, the aforesaid benefit is made available only to an Armed Forces Personnel who is invalidated out of service, and not to any other category of Armed Forces Personnel mentioned hereinabove. We have heard learned counsel for the parties We do not see any error in the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) and therefore all the appeals Therefore, the presumption would be that the casual Further, as per the settled principle of law settled by Hon’ble 2014 , any officer serving in the Armed Forces, who had undergone the medical examination at the time of his/her selection and was found fit, subsequently upon suffering a disability, is entitled to the benefit of disability pension by rounding off the same as the presumption would be ered is attributable to the Military service. Relevant By the present set of appeals the appellant(s) raise the question, whether or not, an individual, who age of superannuation or on completion of his tenure of engagement, if found to be suffering from some disability which is attributable to or aggravated by the military service, is off of he appellant(s) herein would contend that, on the basis of Circular No. C) issued by the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, dated 31.01.2001, the aforesaid benefit is made available only to an Armed Forces out of service, and not to any other category of Armed Forces Personnel We have heard learned counsel for the parties We do not see any error in the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) and therefore all the appeals ANJAL GUPTA 2025.08.25 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8. dispute the said proposition of law having been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in percentage of disability is to be rounded off and when applied in the present case, disability of 30% is to be rounded off to 50%. 9. which pertain to the concept of rounding disability pension are dismissed, with no order as to costs. 7. The dismissal of these matters will be taken note of by the High Courts as well as by the Tribunals in granting appropriate relief to the them, if any, who are getting or are entitled to the disability pension.” Learned counsel for the petitioners dispute the said proposition of law having been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ram Avtar’s percentage of disability is to be rounded off and when applied in the present case, disability of 30% is to be rounded off to 50%. which pertain to the concept of rounding-off of the disability pension are dismissed, with no order as to The dismissal of these matters will be taken note of by the High Courts as well as by the Tribunals in granting appropriate relief to the pensioners before them, if any, who are getting or are entitled to the Learned counsel for the petitioners/UOI has not been able to dispute the said proposition of law having been settled by the Hon’ble m Avtar’s case (supra) to the effect that percentage of disability is to be rounded off and when applied in the present case, disability of 30% is to be rounded off to 50%. off of the disability pension are dismissed, with no order as to The dismissal of these matters will be taken note of by the High Courts as well as by the Tribunals pensioners before them, if any, who are getting or are entitled to the has not been able to dispute the said proposition of law having been settled by the Hon’ble case (supra) to the effect that percentage of disability is to be rounded off and when applied in the present ANJAL GUPTA 2025.08.25 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 10. as well as the settled principle of law settled in once at the time of selection, respondent No. 1 was medically examined and was found fit in all respects and it was only during the service, respondent No.1 was found suffering from the the said disabilit Medical Board cannot take away the right of respondent No.1 to claim the benefit of disability pension and that too, by rounding off the disability as per the settled principle of law settled in 11. 12. impugned order dated facts or the settled principle of law, no interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 13. 14. Keeping in view the facts and circumstance of the present case as well as the settled principle of law settled in e at the time of selection, respondent No. 1 was medically examined and was found fit in all respects and it was only during the service, respondent No.1 was found suffering from the Primary Hypertension the said disability has to be attributed to the military service and the report of Medical Board cannot take away the right of respondent No.1 to claim the benefit of disability pension and that too, by rounding off the disability as per the settled principle of law settled in Ram Avtar’s No other argument has been raised. Hence, in the absence of any perversity being pointed out in the impugned order dated 03.03.2025 (Annexure P facts or the settled principle of law, no interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Keeping in view the facts and circumstance of the present case as well as the settled principle of law settled in Ram Avtar’s case (supra), e at the time of selection, respondent No. 1 was medically examined and was found fit in all respects and it was only during the service, respondent Primary Hypertension. That being so, buted to the military service and the report of Medical Board cannot take away the right of respondent No.1 to claim the benefit of disability pension and that too, by rounding off the disability as Ram Avtar’s case (supra). No other argument has been raised. Hence, in the absence of any perversity being pointed out in the 03.03.2025 (Annexure P-3) either on the basis of the facts or the settled principle of law, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Keeping in view the facts and circumstance of the present case case (supra), e at the time of selection, respondent No. 1 was medically examined and was found fit in all respects and it was only during the service, respondent . That being so, buted to the military service and the report of Medical Board cannot take away the right of respondent No.1 to claim the benefit of disability pension and that too, by rounding off the disability as Hence, in the absence of any perversity being pointed out in the ) either on the basis of the out for any interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case. ANJAL GUPTA 2025.08.25 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document