CWP-21408-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (137) CWP-21408-2026 Date of Decision : July 16, 2026 Union of India and others .. Petitioners Versus HAV Rameshwar and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Ms. Krishna Dayama, Senior Panel Counsel, for the petitioners-UOI. (joined through VC) HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL) 1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 13.02.2020 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2-Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) by which, the benefit of disability pension has been allowed in favour of respondent No.1 by rounding off the disability @ 50% w.e.f. 25.06.2014, which was assessed at less than 20% (15%-19%) on the ground that the same is perverse. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent No.1 joined the Indian Army on 29.12.1962 and was invalided out from service on 23.01.1983 under Rule 13 (3) III (i) of the Army Rules, 1954 on medical grounds and his disability i.e. “Pleural Effusion” was assessed as less than 20% and therefore, as the disability was not assessed upto 20% which is a must and condition precedent for the grant of disability pension keeping in view the governing regulations, the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction while granting the said relief to respondent No.1 along with HARSHA RANI 2026.07.20 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-21408-2026 2 benefit of rounding off while placing reliance on the judgments in Civil Appeal No.5605 of 2010 titled as Sukhvinder Singh vs. Union of India and others, decided on 25.06.2014. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record with her able assistance. 4. On being asked whether, with the disability from which respondent No.1 suffered, the personnel concerned could have continued in service effectively performing the duties without any hinderance, learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to rebut that whether with the said disability, the officer could have continued in service or not. Once, the officer concerned could not continue in service due to the aforementioned disability, the only option was that either he should be invalidated out of service or the officer should get relieved from service. Once, the reason for being invalided out from service is the disability incurred during the service period, the claim of the petitioner that the benefit of disability pension could not be granted to respondent No.1, cannot be accepted. The medical condition is the basis for being invalided out from service, which injury is concededly attributable to the military service. 5. As per the judgment in Sukhvinder Singh’s case (supra), the disability, which led to being discharge from service is assessed at less than 20% (15%-19%), for the purpose of the grant of disability pension, the same has to be treated as a minimum of 20%. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is as under: “11. We are of the persuasion, therefore, that firstly, any disability not recorded at the time of HARSHA RANI 2026.07.20 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-21408-2026 3 recruitment must be presumed to have been caused subsequently and unless proved to the contrary to be a consequence of military service. The benefit of doubt is rightly extended in favour of the member of the Armed Forces; any other conclusion would be tantamount to granting a premium to the Recruitment Medical Board for their own negligence. Secondly, the morale of the Armed Forces requires absolute and undiluted protection and if an injury leads to loss of service without any recompense, this morale would be severely undermined. Thirdly, there appear to be no provisions authorizing the discharge of invaliding out of service where the disability is below 20 percent and seems to us to be logically so. Fourthly, whenever 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%. Fifthly, as per the extant Rules/Regulations, a disability leading to invaliding out of service would attract the grant of fifty percent disability pension.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to rebut the settled principle of law settled in Sukhvinder Singh’s case (supra) which covers the case of respondent No.1 in his favour. 7. Further, as per the principle of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India and others vs. Ram Avtar, 2014 SCC Online SC 1761, and reiterated in Union of India and others vs. Reet M.P. Singh and another, decided on 01.09.2025, any disability assessed @ 20%, is to be rounded off to 50%, which settled principle of law, has not been rebutted by the learned counsel for the petitioners. HARSHA RANI 2026.07.20 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-21408-2026 4 8. Further argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the claim of respondent No.1 is barred by limitation. Qua this argument, it may be noticed that as per the settled principle of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.4100 of 2022 titled as Shri. M.L. Patil (Dead) through LRs vs The State of Goa and another, decided on 20.05.2022, the claim for the pension/family pension cannot be denied on the ground of delay as the same is a recurring cause of action. The relevant paragraphs 3 and 4 of the said judgment are as under:- “3. Having heard Shri Rahul Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Shri Ravindra Lokhande, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent – State of Goa and considering the fact that even by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has held that action of the State Government in requiring the original petitioners to retire at the age of 58 years or not permitting them to continue in their service upto the age of 60 years is illegal and null and void, we are of the view that the High Court has erred in observing that the appellant will not be entitled to any arrears of pension and the pension at the revised rates will become payable only from 1st January, 2020. As such, the High Court may be right and/or justified in denying any salary for the period of two extra years to the writ petitioners if they would have continued in service, on the ground of delay. However, as far as the pension is concerned, it is a continuous cause of action. There is no justification at all for denying the arrears of pension as if they would have been retired/superannuated at the age of 60 years. There is no justification at all by the High Court to deny the pension at the revised rates and payable only from 1 st January, 2020. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed by HARSHA RANI 2026.07.20 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-21408-2026 5 the High Court is required to be modified to the aforesaid extent. 4. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present Appeal Succeeds in Part. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court to the extent of denying any arrears of pension and holding that the appellant shall be entitled to the pension at the revised rates only from 1st January, 2020 is hereby quashed and set aside. It is held and ordered that the appellant – original writ petitioner shall be entitled to pension at the revised rates from the date he attains the age of 60 years. Now the arrears accordingly shall be paid to the appellant within a period of four weeks from today. Present Appeal is Partly Allowed to the aforesaid extent. In the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs ” 9. No other argument has been raised. 10. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, the impugned order dated 13.02.2020 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Tribunal, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case coupled with the settled principle of law, has not been shown to be perverse in any manner. Hence, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case and the present petition is accordingly dismissed. 11. Civil miscellaneous application pending, if any, is also disposed of. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE July 16, 2026 (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) harsha JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No HARSHA RANI 2026.07.20 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document