Union Of India v. Ex Rfn Rishi Kapoor
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH CWP-10771-2026 (O&M) Decided on :09.04.2026 UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS . .Petitioners
Versus
EX RFN RISHI KAPOOR AND ANOTHER . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA PRESENT: Mr. Narender Kumar Vashist, Senior Panel Counsel for the petitioners.
**** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral) 1.
In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the order dated 22.08.2025 (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 @ 50% as against 30% for life has been granted in favour of respondent No.1 for his service rendered by him with Union from 11.03.2013 to 08.03.2022. 2.
Learned counsel for the petitioners- UOI submits that though, the disability of "Primary Hypertension" suffered by the respondent No.1 was assessed at 30% for life but, the said disability was assessed as neither attributable to nor aggravated by the Military service. Despite this fact, the benefit of disability pension has been granted in his favour by the Tribunal by placing reliance upon the judgment of Tribunal in OA No. 861 of 2022 titled as Ex MWO Bhupinder Singh versus Union of India and others. 3.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the case file with his able assistance. 4.
It is a conceded fact that at the time when respondent No.1 was
discharged from service on 08.03.2022, he had already rendered approximately 10 years of service with the petitioners-Union of India. It is also a conceded fact that at the time when respondent No. 1 joined the armed forces i.e. on 01.03.2012, he was medically examined and was found not to be suffering from any such disease and was found to be medically fit but during continuance of his service, he was found to be suffering from disability of "Primary Hypertension". The said fact had been made the basis by the Tribunal while granting benefit to the respondent No.1 by placing reliance upon the judgment of in MWO Bhupinder Singh (Supra) 5.
As for the grievance raised by petitioners with regard to grant of benefit of disability pension to respondent No.1, it should be noted that as per judgment in Dharamvir Singh vs. Union of India and others, (2013) 7 SCC 316 , in a case where army personnel is found to be fit at the time of enrolment, and has later been found to be contracted with a disease, same is presumed to have been contracted with during the time such personnel was rendering service in military and as such same is to be attributed to military service or be regarded as having been aggravated by military service. And the said presumption in favour of army personnel emerges from Rule 5 and 9 of the "Entitlement Rules for Causality Pensionary Awards, 1982', which gives the benefit of presumption of such in favour of army personnel. The relevant para Nos.
30, 32 and 33 of the judgment in Dharamvir Singh's case (supra) 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.
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 service. In fact, nonapplication 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"
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 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 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 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 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. Therefore, the presumption would be that the disability of the appellant bore a casual connection with the service conditions."
6.
Further, with regard to the grievance of petitioners qua the benefit of rounding off of disability granted to respondent No.1, the same
issue has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India and others vs. Ram Avtar, 2014 SCC Online SC 1761, wherein it has been held that an Armed Forces personnel is entitled to be granted the benefit of rounding off with regard to disability pension, irrespective of the fact that he was invalidated out of service, or retired on attaining the age of superannuation or on completion of his tenure of his engagement, if found to be suffering from some disability which is attributable or aggravated by 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 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 is to be rounded off and in the present case, the disability of 30% is to be rounded off to 50% for life.
8.
Further, in a recent judgment in Civil Appeal No.11311 of 2025 titled as Union of India and others vs. Reet MP Singh and another, decided on 01.09.2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by placing reliance upon Ram Avtar's case (supra) as well as Bijender Singh vs. Union of India and others, 2025 SCC Online SC 895, has again reiterated that the benefit of rounding off the disability pension cannot be denied. 9.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstance of the present case as well as the settled principle of law settled in Dharamvir Singh's case (supra), Ram Avtar's case (supra) as well as Reet MP Singh case (supra), once at the time of enrolment, respondent No.1 was medically examined and was found to be fit in all aspects and it was only during his service period that respondent No.1 was found to be suffering from disability of "Primary Hypertension" that being so, the said disability has to be attributed to the military service and the unsubstantiated 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 from 30% to 50%. 10.
Learned counsel for the petitioners-UOI has not been able to rebut the said settled principles of law as well as the facts mentioned hereinbefore.
11.
No other argument has been raised.
12.
Hence, in the absence of any perversity being pointed out in the impugned order dated 22.08.2025 (Annexure P-1) 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. 13.
Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of. 14.
Pending civil miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE ( DEEPAK MANCHANDA ) JUDGE 09.04.2026 Riya Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes/No Whether Reportable:
Yes/No