High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/34119/2024dismissed

Union Of India v. Capt Depinder Kataria (Retd) And Another

2025-08-12Mr. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi,Mr. Justice Vikas Suri6 pages

!"#"$%&'&

$"$ $("

$( ) *# &&&&

"$ *# + *#,# - -"$( *.

"* (0 $( $ ) * &&&&

#-$( $ # 1% 231 & 4 41 44 231 & 4+.44

* # $ %

! In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 14.09.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2-Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh, (for short 'the Tribunal') by which, respondent No.1 has been allowed the benefit of disability pension consisting of both service element and disability element for two years w.e.f. 13.05.1993 to 12.05.1995 @ 20% which has been rounded off to 50% for life keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon the report of Medical Board of respondent No. 1 to hold that though the disability of "Ulcerative Colitis" has been found in respondent No.1, but the same has been held by the Medical Board to be 'neither attributable to Military Service nor aggravated by the Military service'. Hence, the grant of benefit of

disability pension to respondent No.1 by the Tribunal by placing reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Dharamvir Singh versus Union of India and others, (2013) 7 SCC 316, is incorrect.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that once, the report of the Medical Board clearly states that the disability of respondent No.1 of Ulcerative Colitis is neither attributed to nor aggravated by the military service, the grant of benefit of disability pension @ 50% to respondent No. 1 is incorrect, and the judgment passed in Dharamvir Singh's case (supra) has not been appreciated in correct perspective by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order dated 14.09.2023 (Annexure P-1). 5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Narsingh Yadav vs. Union of India and others, (2019) 9 SCC 667, to contend that any disorder not detected at the time of enrollment of the employee concerned, cannot be mechanically attributed to military service. He further contends that, as per the said judgment, the presumption that a personnel who was found to be fit at the time of enrollment and was further detected with a disability, such a disability cannot be mechanically presumed to be attributed to and aggravated by military service.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file with their able assistance. 7.

It is conceded fact that at the time when respondent No.1 was relieved from service on medical ground on 13.05.1993, he had already rendered more than 08 years of service with the petitioner-Union of India. It is also a conceded fact that at the time when respondent No.1 joined the armed

forces i.e. on 09.03.1985, he was medically examined and was found not to be suffering from any such disease, on the basis of which, respondent No.1 was ultimately discharged from service.

As per the principle settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Dharamvir Singh's case (supra), which has also been considered by the Tribunal in the impugned order dated 14.09.2023 (Annexure P-1), any officer serving in the Armed Forces, who had undergone the medical examination at the time of his/her selection and was found not to be suffering from any such disease at that time on the basis of which, he/she has been discharged from service, such an employee is entitled for the benefit of presumption in his/her favour as per Rule 5 and 9 of 'Entitlement Rules for Causality Pensionary Awards, 1982' that the said disability has been contracted by the employee during his service career and is, thus, entitled for the benefit of disability pension. The relevant para No.32 of the judgment in Dharamvir Singh's case (supra) is as under:-

% & '(

)

*&+'

! ,-

1 9.

Further, as per the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bijender Singh versus Union of India and others, 2025 SSC OnLine SC 895, the same issue has been considered again and it has been held that the burden of proof to prove that the disability is not attributed to military service is upon employer and the unsubstantiated report of Medical Board cannot be accepted especially when no disability was detected at the time of entry of the personnel concerned into service, relevant para is as under ! $ 2

344*3

5 !2

$ 6

)

" !

%47

# 5

4*4*+ 344*3

) 9

%47

!4*4**&&3

37 !

1 10.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to dispute the said proposition of law having been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Dharamvir Singh's case (supra) as well as Bijender Singh's case (supra).

11.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment in Narsingh Yadav's case (supra) to contend that in case a person is found to be fit at time and is at later stage in service found to be suffering from a disability, the presumption that such a disability is attributed to military service cannot be applied mechanically. Qua the said aspect, it shall be noted that to rebut such a presumption, which is in favour of a disabled employee, sufficient material has to be brought on record to show that neither the service conditions nor the duties assigned to the employee concerned were of such a nature which could establish that disability is not attributable to the military service, such onus has not been discharged by the employer in the present case to show that the respondent No.1-employee's case is covered by Narsingh Yadav's case (supra).

! 12.

Keeping in view the settled principle of law settled in Dharamvir Singh's case (supra), Bijender Singh's case (supra) and Narsingh Yadav's case (supra) as well as the facts and circumstances of the present case that at the time of selection, respondent No.1 was medically examined and was found fit in all respects and it was only after respondent No.1 rendered service for 08 years with the petitioner-UOI, he was found to be suffering from the Ulcerative Colitis along with the fact that no cogent evidence/material or detailed medical record has been brought on record to prove to this Court that the disability is not attributable to military service. 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 for the claim of the benefit of disability pension. 13.

Hence, in the absence of any perversity being pointed out in the impugned order dated 14.09.2023 (Annexure P-1) either on the basis of the facts or the settled principle of law, no " "

# " " 14.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

15.

%& # / 41 440 JUDGE (VIKAS SURI) August 12, 2025 JUDGE Varinder ' ( ) * '

)