Gulab Jha v. Union of India
Case Details
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 19.11 .11.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No. 2 Armed Forces 1) passed by respondent No. 2-Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandimandir Tribunal, (hereinafter referred to as mandir (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), by which, respondent No.1 has been ‘Tribunal’) allowed the benefit of , by which, respondent No.1 has been allowed the benefit of disability pension by rounding off the disability from 30% to 50% by rounding off the disability element from 30% to 50% for life w.e.f. , on the ground that the same is perverse. w.e.f. 01.09.2017, on the ground that the same is perverse. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon the Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon the Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon the examination of respondent No.1 to hold that though the report of medical examination of respondent No.1 to hold that though the examination of respondent No.1 to hold that though the report of medical disability of “Primary Hypertension” as assessed @ 30% disability of “ has been found in as assessed @ 30% has been found in respondent No.1, but the same has been held to be ‘neither attributable to respondent No.1, but the same has been held to be ‘neither attributable to respondent No.1, but the same has been held to be ‘neither attributable to respondent No.1, but the same has been held to be ‘neither attributable to ce’. Hence, the grant of Military Service nor aggravated by the Military service’. Hence, the grant of Military Service nor aggravated by the Military servi Military Service nor aggravated by the Military servi by rounding of the disability benefit of disability pension to respondent No.1 by rounding of the disability benefit of disability pension to respondent No.1 benefit of disability pension to respondent No.1 from 30% to 50% for life by placing reliance upon the judgment of the from 30% to 50% for life by placing reliance upon the judgment of the from 30% to 50% for life by placing reliance upon the judgment of the from 30% to 50% for life by placing reliance upon the judgment of the MA Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No. 1356 of 2022, with MA Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in No.1047 of 2023 titled as Ex. MWO(HFO) No.1047 of 20 Gulab Jha vs. Union of India (HFO) Gulab Jha vs. Union of India ANJAL GUPTA 2025.08.22 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document and the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in and others, and the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in and the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in and others, Dharamvir Singh versus Union of India and others, (2013) 7 SCC 316, Dharamvir Singh versus Union of India and others, Dharamvir Singh versus Union of India and others, (2013) 7 SCC 316, is incorrect. incorrect. 3. its that once, Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that once, Learned counsel for the petitioners further subm the report of the Medical Board clearly states that the disability of the report of the Medical Board clearly states that the disability of the report of the Medical Board clearly states that the disability of the report of the Medical Board clearly states that the disability of respondent No.1 is neither attributed to military service nor aggravated by respondent No.1 is neither attributed to military service nor aggravated by respondent No.1 is neither attributed to military service nor aggravated by respondent No.1 is neither attributed to military service nor aggravated by ility pension to respondent the military service, the grant of benefit of disability pension to respondent the military service, the grant of benefit of disab the military service, the grant of benefit of disab No.1 by roundin from 30% to 50% for life is incorrect and by rounding of the disability from 30% to 50% for life is incorrect and from 30% to 50% for life is incorrect and the facts of the present case have not been appreciated in correct perspective the facts of the present case have not been appreciated in correct perspective the facts of the present case have not been appreciated in correct perspective the facts of the present case have not been appreciated in correct perspective .2024 by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order dated 19.11.2024 by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order dated 1 by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order dated 1 (Annexure P-1). (Annexure P 4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have able assistance. gone through the case file with his able assistance. gone through the case file with 5. It is conceded fact that at the time when respondent No.1 retired It is conceded fact that at the time when respondent No.1 retired It is conceded fact that at the time when respondent No.1 retired from service on 31.08.2017, he had already rendered more than from service on , he had already rendered more than 24 years years of Union of India. It is also a conceded fact that at Union of India. It is also a conceded fact that service with the petitioners-Union of India. It is also a conceded fact that service with the petitioners the time when respondent No.1 joined the armed forces the time when respondent No. i.e. on 28.08.1993, 1 joined the armed forces i.e. on 28.08.1993 he was medically examined and was not found suffering from any such he was medically examined and was not found suffering from any such he was medically examined and was not found suffering from any such he was medically examined and was not found suffering from any such disease, on the basis of which, respondent No. 1 has been disease, on the basis of which discharged from , respondent No. 1 has been discharged from The claim of respondent No.1 is covered in his favour for the grant service. The claim of respondent No.1 is covered in his favour for the grant The claim of respondent No.1 is covered in his favour for the grant The claim of respondent No.1 is covered in his favour for the grant of disability pension as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme of India in of disability pension as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme of India in of disability pension as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme of India in of disability pension as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme of India in Dharamvir Singh’s case (supra). The relevant para Nos.30, 32 a Dharamvir Singh’s nd 33 of the case (supra). The relevant para Nos.30, 32 and 33 of the said judgment are as under:- said judgment are as under: 30. In the present case it is undisputed that no note of In the present case it is undisputed that no note of In the present case it is undisputed that no note of any disease has been recorded at the time of appellant's any disease has been recorded at the time of appellant's any disease has been recorded at the time of appellant's ANJAL GUPTA 2025.08.22 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document acceptance for military service. The respondents have acceptance for military service. The respondents have acceptance for military service. The respondents have suggest that the failed to bring on record any document to suggest that the failed to bring on record any document to appellant was under treatment for such a disease or by appellant was under treatment for such a disease or by appellant was under treatment for such a disease or by hereditary he is suffering from such disease. In absence hereditary he is suffering from such disease. In absence hereditary he is suffering from such disease. In absence of any note in the service record at the time of acceptance of any note in the service record at the time of acceptance of any note in the service record at the time of acceptance of joining of appellant it was incumbent on the part of the of joining of appellant it was incumbent on the part of the of joining of appellant it was incumbent on the part of the Board to call for records and look into the same Medical Board to call for records and look into the same Board to call for records and look into the same before coming to an opinion that the disease could not before coming to an opinion that the disease could not before coming to an opinion that the disease could not have been detected on medical examination prior to the have been detected on medical examination prior to the have been detected on medical examination prior to the acceptance for military service, but nothing is on the acceptance for military service, but nothing is on the acceptance for military service, but nothing is on the s called for by record to suggest that any such record was called for by record to suggest that any such record wa the Medical Board or looked into it and no reasons have the Medical Board or looked into it and no reasons have the Medical Board or looked into it and no reasons have been recorded in writing to come to the conclusion that been recorded in writing to come to the conclusion that been recorded in writing to come to the conclusion that the disability is not due to military service. In fact, non- the disability is not due to military service. In fact, non the disability is not due to military service. In fact, non application of mind of Medical Board is apparent from application of mind of Medical Board is apparent from application of mind of Medical Board is apparent from paragraph 2 of the opinion of the Medical Clause (d) of paragraph 2 of the opinion of the Medical paragraph 2 of the opinion of the Medical Board, which is as follows: Board, which is as follows: “(d) In the case of a disability under C the board should “(d) In the case of a disability under C the board should “(d) In the case of a disability under C the board should state what exactly in their opinion is the cause thereof. state what exactly in their opinion is the cause thereof. state what exactly in their opinion is the cause thereof. YES Disability is not related to mil service” YES Disability is not related to mil service” 32. resaid provisions, the Pension In spite of the aforesaid provisions, the Pension In spite of the afo Sanctioning Authority failed to notice that the Medical Sanctioning Authority failed to notice that the Medical Sanctioning Authority failed to notice that the Medical Board had not given any reason in support of its opinion, Board had not given any reason in support of its opinion, Board had not given any reason in support of its opinion, particularly when there is no note of such disease or particularly when there is no note of such disease or particularly when there is no note of such disease or disability available in the service record of the appellant disability available in the service record of the appella disability available in the service record of the appella at the time of acceptance for military service. Without at the time of acceptance for military service. Without at the time of acceptance for military service. Without going through the aforesaid facts the Pension Sanctioning going through the aforesaid facts the Pension Sanctioning going through the aforesaid facts the Pension Sanctioning Authority mechanically passed the impugned order of Authority mechanically passed the impugned order of Authority mechanically passed the impugned order of rejection based on the report of the Medical Board. As rejection based on the report of the Medical Board. As rejection based on the report of the Medical Board. As t Rules for Casualty per Rules 5 and 9 of 'Entitlement Rules for Casualty per Rules 5 and 9 of 'Entitlemen Pensionary Awards, 1982', the appellant is entitled for Pensionary Awards, 1982', the appellant is entitled for Pensionary Awards, 1982', the appellant is entitled for presumption and benefit of presumption in his favour. In presumption and benefit of presumption in his favour. In presumption and benefit of presumption in his favour. In absence of any evidence on record to show that the absence of any evidence on record to show that the absence of any evidence on record to show that the ANJAL GUPTA 2025.08.22 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document appellant was suffering from "Genrealised seizure appellant was suffering from "Genrealised seizure appellant was suffering from "Genrealised seizure me of acceptance of his service, it (Epilepsy)” at the time of acceptance of his service, it me of acceptance of his service, it will be presumed that the appellant was in sound physical will be presumed that the appellant was in sound physical will be presumed that the appellant was in sound physical and mental condition at the time of entering the service and mental condition at the time of entering the service and mental condition at the time of entering the service and deterioration in his health has taken place due to and deterioration in his health has taken place due to and deterioration in his health has taken place due to service. 33. As per Rule 423(a) of General Rules for the As per Rule 423(a) of General Rules for the purpose of determining a question whether the cause of a purpose of determining a question whether the cause of a purpose of determining a question whether the cause of a disability or death resulting from disease is or is not disability or death resulting from disease is or is not disability or death resulting from disease is or is not attributable to service, it is immaterial whether the cause attributable to service, it is immaterial whether the cause attributable to service, it is immaterial whether the cause giving rise to the disability or death occurred in an area giving rise to the disability or death occurred in an area giving rise to the disability or death occurred in an area a field service/active service area or under declared to be a field service/active service area or under a field service/active service area or under normal peace conditions. normal peace conditions. "Classification "Classification "Classification of of of diseases” diseases” diseases” have have have been been been prescribed at Chapter IV of Annexure I; under prescribed at Chapter IV of Annexure I; under prescribed at Chapter IV of Annexure I; under paragraph 4 post traumatic epilepsy and other paragraph 4 post traumatic epilepsy and other paragraph 4 post traumatic epilepsy and other mental changes resulting from head injuries mental changes resulting from head injuries mental changes resulting from head injuries hown as one of the diseases affected have been shown as one of the diseases affected hown as one of the diseases affected by training, marching, prolonged standing etc. by training, marching, prolonged standing etc. by training, marching, prolonged standing etc. Therefore, the presumption would be that the Therefore, the presumption would be that the Therefore, the presumption would be that the disability of disability of disability of the appellant bore a casual the appellant bore a casual the appellant bore a casual connection with the service conditions.” connection with the service conditions.” 6. law settled by Hon’ble Further, as per the settled principle of law settled by Hon’ble Further, as per the settled principle of Supreme Court of India in Union of India and others vs. Ram Avtar Supreme Court of India in Union of India and others vs. Ram Avtar, 2014 2014 , any officer serving in the Armed Forces, who had SCC Online SC 1761, any officer serving in the Armed Forces, who had , any officer serving in the Armed Forces, who had SCC Online SC 1761 undergone the medical examination at the time of his/her selection and was undergone the medical examination at the time of his/her selection and was undergone the medical examination at the time of his/her selection and was undergone the medical examination at the time of his/her selection and was quently upon suffering a disability, is entitled to the benefit found fit, subsequently upon suffering a disability, is entitled to the benefit quently upon suffering a disability, is entitled to the benefit found fit, subse of disability pension by rounding off the same as the presumption would be of disability pension by rounding off the same as the presumption would be of disability pension by rounding off the same as the presumption would be of disability pension by rounding off the same as the presumption would be that the disability suffered is attributable to the Military service. Relevant that the disability suffered is attributable to the Military service. Relevant that the disability suffered is attributable to the Military service. Relevant that the disability suffered is attributable to the Military service. Relevant case (supra) are as under:- paras of the judgment in Ram Avtar’s case (supra) are as under: paras of the judgment in ANJAL GUPTA 2025.08.22 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document By the present set of appeals the appellant(s) “4. By the present set of appeals the appellant(s) By the present set of appeals the appellant(s) raise the question, whether or not, an individual, who raise the question, whether or not, an individual, who raise the question, whether or not, an individual, who has retired on attaining the age of superannuation or has retired on attaining the age of superannuation or has retired on attaining the age of superannuation or on completion of his tenure of engagement, if found on completion of his tenure of engagement, if found on completion of his tenure of engagement, if found from some disability which is to be suffering from some disability which is from some disability which is attributable to or aggravated by the military service, is attributable to or aggravated by the military service, is attributable to or aggravated by the military service, is off of entitled to be granted the benefit of rounding-off of entitled to be granted the benefit of rounding disability pension. The appellant(s) herein would disability pension. The appellant(s) herein would disability pension. The appellant(s) herein would contend contend contend that, on that, on that, on the basis of Circular No. the basis of Circular No. the basis of Circular No. ued by the Ministry of Defence, 1(2)/97/D(Pen-C) issued by the Ministry of Defence, ued by the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, dated 31.01.2001, the aforesaid Government of India, dated 31.01.2001, the aforesaid Government of India, dated 31.01.2001, the aforesaid benefit is made available only to an Armed Forces benefit is made available only to an Armed Forces benefit is made available only to an Armed Forces Personnel who is invalidated out of service, and not to Personnel who is invalidated out of service, and not to Personnel who is invalidated out of service, and not to any other category of Armed Forces Personnel any other category of Armed Forces Personnel any other category of Armed Forces Personnel e. mentioned hereinabove. We have heard learned counsel for the parties 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties We have heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis. We do not see any error in the impugned 6. We do not see any error in the impugned We do not see any error in the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) and therefore all the appeals judgment(s) and order(s) and therefore all the appeals judgment(s) and order(s) and therefore all the appeals off of the which pertain to the concept of rounding-off of the which pertain to the concept of rounding no order as to disability pension are dismissed, with no order as to disability pension are dismissed, with costs. 7. The dismissal of these matters will be taken The dismissal of these matters will be taken The dismissal of these matters will be taken
Facts
note of by the High Courts as well as by the Tribunals note of by the High Courts as well as by the Tribunals note of by the High Courts as well as by the Tribunals in granting appropriate relief to the pensioners before in granting appropriate relief to the pensioners before in granting appropriate relief to the pensioners before them, if any, who are getting or are entitled to the them, if any, who are getting or are entitled to the them, if any, who are getting or are entitled to the disability pension.” 7.
Legal Reasoning
interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case. interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case. interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case. interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Arguments
has not been able to dispute Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to dispute Learned counsel for the petitioners the said proposition of law having been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme the said proposition of law having been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme the said proposition of law having been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme the said proposition of law having been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme case (supra) to the effect that percentage of Court of India in Ram Avtar’scase (supra) to the effect that percentage of case (supra) to the effect that percentage of Court of India in lied in the present case disability of disability to be rounded off and when applied in the present case disability of disability to be rounded off and when app disability to be rounded off and when app 30% to be rounded off to 50%. 30% to be rounded off to 50%. ANJAL GUPTA 2025.08.22 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstance of the present case Keeping in view the facts and circumstance of the present case Keeping in view the facts and circumstance of the present case case (supra), as well as the settled principle of law settled in Ram Avtar’scase (supra), as well as the settled principle of law settled in as well as the settled principle of law settled in once at the time of selection, respondent No. 1 was medically examined and once at the time of selection, respondent No. 1 was medically examined and once at the time of selection, respondent No. 1 was medically examined and once at the time of selection, respondent No. 1 was medically examined and was found fit in all respects and it was only during the service, respondent was found fit in all respects and it was only during the service, respondent was found fit in all respects and it was only during the service, respondent was found fit in all respects and it was only during the service, respondent No.1 was found suffering from the Primary Hypertension No.1 was found suffering from the . That being so, Primary Hypertension. That being so, ies have to be attributed to the military service and the the said disabilities have to be attributed to the military service and the ies have to be attributed to the military service and the the said disabilit report of Medical Board cannot take away the right of respondent No.1 to report of Medical Board cannot take away the right of respondent No.1 to report of Medical Board cannot take away the right of respondent No.1 to 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 claim the benefit of disability pension and that too, by rounding off the claim the benefit of disability pension and that too, by rounding off the claim the benefit of disability pension and that too, by rounding off the disability from 30% to 50 % as per the settled prin ciple of law settled in as per the settled principle of law settled in Ram Avtar’scase (supra). Ram Avtar’s 9. 10. No other argument has been raised. No other argument has been raised. Hence, in the absence of any perversity being pointed out in the Hence, in the absence of any perversity being pointed out in the Hence, in the absence of any perversity being pointed out in the impugned order dated 19.11.2024 (Annexure P impugned order dated 1 1) either on the basis of the .2024 (Annexure P-1) either on the basis of the ground is made out for any facts or the settled principle of law, no ground is made out for any facts or the settled principle of law, no facts or the settled principle of law, no
Decision
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 11. 12. ANJAL GUPTA 2025.08.22 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document