CWP-12552 v. Ex. Sub Rajbir Singh

Mr. N.K Verma, Advocate for the Advocate for the petitioners. *** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral)

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 21.11.2022

21.11.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent Armed Forces 1) passed by respondent-Armed Forces hereinafter referred to as ‘the , Regional Bench, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the , Regional Bench, Chandigarh, ( Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh, ( Tribunal’) in OA No. 1428 of 2021, by which, Tribunal’) of the respondent by which, the claim of the respondent for the grant of disability pension w.e.f 01.11.2017 @ 50%, has been for the grant of disability pension w.e.f 01.11.2017 @ 50%, has been for the grant of disability pension w.e.f 01.11.2017 @ 50%, has been for the grant of disability pension w.e.f 01.11.2017 @ 50%, has been wrongly allowed. wrongly allowed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though, the Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though, the Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though, the respondent had worked with the authorities for a period of more than 29 respondent had worked with the authorities for a period of more than 29 respondent had worked with the authorities for a period of more than 29 respondent had worked with the authorities for a period of more than 29 years, but the disability of “CORONARY ARTERY DISE years, but th (NON- CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE (NON cannot CAL) NORMAL LV FUNCTION”, suffered by respondent cannot CAL) NORMAL LV FUNCTION CRITICAL) NORMAL LV FUNCTION be attributed in military service as the same has been assessed as neither be attributed in military service as the same has been assessed as neither be attributed in military service as the same has been assessed as neither be attributed in military service as the same has been assessed as neither by the Medical Board, attributable to nor aggravated by military service by the Medical Board attributable to nor aggravated by military service attributable to nor aggravated by military service CWP-12552-2026 -2- which fact has not been taken into account by the Tribunal while grating the benefit of disability pension by rounding it off @ 50% to the respondent.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the records of the present case with his able assistance.

4. It may be noticed that respondent joined the Armed forces on

19.10.1987 and was discharged on completion of service on 01.11.2017 under the Army Rule on being placed in the Low Medical Category due to disability of “CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE (NON-CRITICAL) NORMAL LV FUNCTION”, after rendering service of more than 29 years. The Medical Board, held on 08.04.2017 and assessed the disability as neither attributable to nor aggravated by the military service.

5. As per the principle settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Dharamvir Singh versus Union of India and others, (2013) 7 SCC 316, any officer serving in the Armed Forces, who had undergone the medical examination at the time of his/her selection and was not found 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 suffered by the employee during his service career and is, thus, entitled for the benefit of disability pension. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment 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 CWP-12552-2026 -3- 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. YES ” 31. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 32. In spite of the aforesaid provisions, the Pension Sanctioning Authority failed to notice that the Medical Board.”

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to rebut that keeping in view the aforementioned settled principle of law, respondent is to be held entitled for the grant of disability pension keeping in view the disability of “CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE (NON-CRITICAL) NORMAL LV FUNCTION”, which is to be treated as having been attributable and aggravated by the military service.

7. Further, with regard to the grievance of petitioners qua the benefit of rounding off of disability granted to respondent, 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 CWP-12552-2026 -4- 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.”

8. 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 of the disability element from 30% to 50% in the present case.

9. 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), has again reiterated that the benefit of rounding off the disability element, cannot be denied.

10. 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) and Reet MP Singh’s case (supra), respondent has rightly been held to be entitled to disability pension by rounding off the disability element from 30% to 50% though in the CWP-12552-2026 -5- impugned order, same has been wrongly mentioned due to a typographical error the disability of 50% is being rounded off to 75%.

12. No other argument has been raised. Hence, in the absence of any perversity being pointed out in the impugned order dated 21.11.2022 (Annexure P-1) in the OA No.1428 of 2021, 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 the writ petition is accordingly dismissed but with a clarification of typographical error that 30% disability of the respondent will be rounded off to 50% and not 50% to be rounded off to 75%. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE 24-04-2026 Sapna Goyal (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/ reasoned: YES Whether reportable: NO