Union Of India v. Ex Sepoy Anil Kumar Sharma No 13747937h
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 11.05.2026 CWP-14406-2026 Union of India and others
...Petitioners
Versus
Ex.L/Naik Surya Narayan Mishra and another
...Respondents
CWP-14492-2026 Union of India and others
...Petitioners
Versus
Ex.Sepoy Anil Kumar Sharma and another
...Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA
Present:
Mr. Maneesh Bali, Senior Panel Counsel for petitioners-UOI. * * * HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (ORAL) 1.
This order shall dispose of two writ petitions i.e. CWP-144062026 and CWP-14492-2026 as the issues involved in both these cases are same. For reference, facts have been taken from CWP-14406-2026. 2.
In the present petition, challenge is to the impugned order dated 18.10.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2-Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') by which, respondent No.1 has been allowed the benefit of disability element of disability pension alongwith benefit of rounding off of the disability element @ 75% as against 55 % from the day of following the date of his discharge. 3.
Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon the report of medical examination of respondent No.1 to contend that though, the
disability of '(I) PIVD L5-S1 (PROLAPSE INTERVERTIBRAL DISC L5-SI) (ii) DIABETES MELLITUS TYPE II (E 11) and (iii) PRIMARY HYPERTENSION' have been found to be existing in respondent No.1, but the said disability has been held to be 'neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service'. Hence, the grant of benefit of disability pension to respondent No.1 @ 75% for life by the Tribunal by placing reliance upon the judgments passed in Dharamvir Singh vs. Union of India and others, (2013) 7 SCC 316 and in Civil Appeal No.418/2012 titled as Union of India Vs. Ram Avtar is incorrect.
4.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the case file with his able assistance. 5.
Few facts need to be taken into consideration while deciding the present case, which are; that respondent No.1 was enrolled in Army (Regiment of Artillery) on 23.03.1982 and discharged w.e.f.31.03.2009 after rendering 27 years and 09 days of qualifying service for which he was granted service pension for life. Thereafter, respondent No.1 was enrolled into Defence Service Corps (for short DSC) on 23.11.2010. The initial term of engagement of the individual was completed on 31.12.2017 i.e. upto age of his superannuation of 55 years. Thereafter, respondent No.1 was granted two years enhanced service conditionally w.e.f.01.01.2018 to 31.12.2019. Finally, respondent No.1 was discharged from DSC Service w.e.f.30.09.2019. 6.
A perusal of the paper book along with the impugned order would reveal that grievance of petitioners is qua two aspects firstly, that benefit of disability pension and second the benefit of rounding off of disability pension has been wrongly granted to respondent No.1.
7.
It should be noted that as per judgment in Dharamvir Singh's case
(supra) in a case where army personnel is found to be fit at the time of enrolment, and has later found to be contracted with a disease, same is presumed to have been aggravated by and attributable to military service. 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.
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 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, 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.
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."
8.
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 Ram Avtar's case (supra), 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." 9.
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 55% is to be rounded off to 75%.
10.
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 Union of India and others vs. Ram Avtar, 2014 SCC Online SC 1761 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 element cannot be denied.
11.
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 M.P. Singh's case (supra) once at the time of enrolment, respondent No.1 was medically examined and was found to be fit in all respects and it was only during his service period that respondent No.1 was found to be suffering from '(I) PIVD L5-S1 (PROLAPSE INTERVERTIBRAL DISC L5-SI) (ii) DIABETES MELLITUS TYPE II (E 11)
and (iii) 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 55% to 75%.
12.
Accordingly, in CWP-14492-2026, the respondent/claimant is held entitled for grant of benefit of disability pension @50% as against 30%. 13.
No other argument raised.
14.
Hence, in the absence of any perversity being pointed out in the impugned orders dated 18.10.2022 and 20.10.2023 (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 and both writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. 15.
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. 16.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case(s).
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) 11.05.2026 JUDGE vanita Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable :
No