Ex MA II Tajender Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

Judgment

#1. In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the order dated

23.01.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2-Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) by which, in the OA No.3299 of 2019 titled as “Ex MA II Tajender Singh vs. Union of India and Ors” whereby respondent No.1 has been held entitled to benefit of the disability pension consisting of disability element and service element along with the benefit of rounding off of disability pension from 50% to 75% on the ground that the same is perverse.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is aggrieved by the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 23.01.2023 on three grounds, firstly, that the claim of respondent No.1 is barred by limitation. Secondly, that the medical test of the personnel conducted at the time of entry into service is not exhaustive and merely because disease has manifested during CWP-19974-2026 -2- Military service does not per se establish attributability or aggravation by Military service especially when the disability has been assessed by the Medical Board as neither attributable to nor aggravated by Military service. Thirdly, no relief of pension could have been granted when service record of the applicant was destroyed by the petitioners after the period of retention. Therefore, respondent No.1 has been wrongly allowed the benefit of disability pension by rounding off the disability @ 75 % as against 50%.

#3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the case file with his able assistance.

#4. It may be noticed that respondent No.1 enrolled in Armed forces on 08.01.1981 in a fit medical condition. While in service, he suffered a disability of “Generalised Seizure” assessed as 50% and ultimately respondent No.1 was invalided out from service on 15.04.1985 after rendering 04 years 03 months and 08 days of service. However, respondent No.1 was not granted the benefit of disability pension on the ground that the said disability is neither attributable to nor aggravated by the military service, which benefit has now been granted by the Tribunal.

#5. The first argument of the petitioners that respondent’s claim is time barred cannot be accepted in terms of the settled principles of law laid down in civil appeal No.4100 of 2022 titled as “Shri M.L. Patil (Dead) through LRs versus The State of Goa and Another” decided on 20.05.2022 wherein it has been held that denial of pension is a continuous cause of action. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to rebut.

#6. The second argument of the petitioners that medical fitness at the time of entry into service cannot be made a ground to hold the disability CWP-19974-2026 -3- as attributable to Military service if disability was detected during Military service is also not sustainable. 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 for records and look into the same before coming to an opinion that the disease could not have been detected on medical examination prior 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.” CWP-19974-2026 -4-

#7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to rebut that keeping in view the aforementioned settled principle of law, respondent No.1 is to be held entitled for the grant of disability pension keeping in view the disability of “Generalised Seizure”, which disability is to be treated as having been attributable and aggravated by the military service.

#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 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 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 that, on CWP-19974-2026 -5- 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. 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. 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) as well as Reet MP Singh’s case (supra) to the effect that percentage of disability to be rounded off and when applied in the present case disability of 50% to be rounded off to 75%.

#11. Another argument of the petitioners that the benefit of disability pension cannot be granted to the personnel-respondent No.1 as his service record has been destroyed by the petitioners cannot be accepted as the relevant extract of discharge certificate (Annexure A-1) which was placed on record proves the factual averments of the case, relying upon which the learned Tribunal has rightly allowed the claim of respondent No.1.

#12. 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’s case (supra), as discussed above, respondent No.1 has rightly been held to be entitled to CWP-19974-2026 -6- disability pension by rounding off the disability element from 50% to 75%.

#14. No other argument has been raised. Hence, in the absence of any perversity being pointed out in the impugned order dated 23.01.2023 (Annexure P-1) in the OA No.3299 of 2019 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.

#16. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE July 06, 2026 Shubham Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No