IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 122 CWP-25679-2025 Date of Decision: 01.09.2025 Union of India and others ....Petitioners Versus Balbir Kaur and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI ---- Present: Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Senior Panel Counsel for the petitioners. **** Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral) 1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 12.12.2022 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.2-Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), by which, the husband of respondent No.1 has been allowed the benefit of disability pension by rounding off the disability element @ 50% as against 30% w.e.f. 01.01.1996 to 15.04.2008 as well as the order dated 04.08.2023 (Annexure P-5) passed in the review application. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon the report of medical examination of the husband of respondent No.1 to contend that though the disability of ‘Osteoarthritis Both Knees’ has been found in the VARINDER PRASHAD 2025.09.05 10:46 I attest to the accuracy of this document PHHC CWP-25679-2025 -: 2 :- husband of respondent No.1, but he had been discharged from service on 29.01.1977 on completion of his terms of engagement. Hence, the grant of benefit of disability pension to the husband of respondent No.1 by rounding off the disability element @ 50% as against 30% w.e.f. 01.01.1996 to 15.04.2008 by placing reliance upon the judgment of in Union of India and others vs. Ram Avtar, 2014 SCC Online SC 1761, 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 12.12.2022 (Annexure P-3). 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the case file with his able assistance. 4. It is conceded fact that at the time when the husband of respondent No.1 was discharged from service on 29.01.1977 on completion of his terms of engagement under Army Rule 13(3) Item III (i), he had already rendered 19 years of service with the petitioners-Union of India. It is also a conceded fact that at the time when the husband of 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, he has been granted the benefit of disability pension. 5. A perusal of the records reveals that PCDA (P), Prayagraj vide their PPO No.D/2276/1977 had notified the disability element of disability pension @30 % with effect from 30.01.1997 to 24.10.1986 and thereafter, Re- survey Medical Board was held and assessed the disability of the husband of respondent No.1 @ 30% for life. Even the Medical Board has held that the ‘Osteoarthritis Both Knees’ has been aggravated by the military service. Not only this, the fact that the disability further was assessed at 30% for life has VARINDER PRASHAD 2025.09.05 10:46 I attest to the accuracy of this document PHHC CWP-25679-2025 -: 3 :- gone unrebutted. Keeping in view this fact also, when even the Medical Board has conceded that the disease which led to the invalidation of the officer concerned was aggravated by the military service, filing of the petition by the Union of India to challenge the order of Tribunal is contrary to the recommendations of the Medical Board itself. 6. Further, as per the settled principle of law settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ram Avtar’s case (supra), 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 that the disability suffered is attributable to the Military service. Relevant paras of the judgment in Ram Avtar’s case (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 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. 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 out of service, and not to any other category of Armed Forces Personnel mentioned hereinabove. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the VARINDER PRASHAD 2025.09.05 10:46 I attest to the accuracy of this document PHHC CWP-25679-2025 -: 4 :- parties to the lis. 6. We do not see any error in the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) and therefore all the appeals which pertain to the concept of rounding-off of the 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 pensioners before them, if any, who are getting or are entitled to the disability pension.” 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to dispute the said proposition of law having been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ram Avtar’s case (supra) to the effect that percentage of disability to be rounded off and when applied in the present case, disability of 30% to be rounded off to 50%. 8. 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), once at the time of selection, the husband of respondent No.1 was medically examined and was found fit in all respects and it was only during the service, he was found suffering from ‘Osteoarthritis Both Knees’, which was aggravated by military service. That being so, claim of the husband of respondent No.1 for the benefit of disability pension by rounding off the disability as per the settled principle of law settled in Ram Avtar’s case (supra) has rightly been allowed. 9. No other argument has been raised. 10. Hence, in the absence of any perversity being pointed out in VARINDER PRASHAD 2025.09.05 10:46 I attest to the accuracy of this document PHHC CWP-25679-2025 -: 5 :- the impugned orders dated 12.12.2022 (Annexure P-3) as well as 04.08.2023 (Annexure P-5) 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. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 12. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE (VIKAS SURI) September 01, 2025 JUDGE Varinder Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No VARINDER PRASHAD 2025.09.05 10:46 I attest to the accuracy of this document PHHC