Supreme Court
Case Details
(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:11) 1 (cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:14)(cid:16)(cid:12)(cid:18)(cid:16)(cid:14)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:15)(cid:14)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:13)(cid:23)(cid:24)(cid:25)(cid:14)(cid:24)(cid:13)(cid:26)(cid:14)(cid:16)(cid:24)(cid:21)(cid:27)(cid:24)(cid:13)(cid:24) (cid:24)(cid:15)(cid:14)(cid:1)(cid:16)(cid:24)(cid:13)(cid:26)(cid:12)(cid:18)(cid:24)(cid:21)(cid:16) (cid:14) (cid:28)(cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:11)(cid:29) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:11) (cid:26)(cid:30)(cid:31) (cid:14)!"(cid:14)(cid:26) #$%$!&(cid:14)’(cid:14)( )(cid:31) *+ ,(cid:14)-(cid:8).(cid:14)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:14)(cid:14) (cid:20)&$!&(cid:14)!"(cid:14)(cid:12)&/$(cid:30)(cid:14)(cid:30)&/(cid:14)!(cid:31)0 ,%(cid:14) 11(cid:14)(cid:3) (cid:31)$(cid:31)$!& ,% 2 ,%3% (cid:17)4(cid:4)(cid:13)5(cid:14)2$,(cid:14)($&60(cid:14)(cid:30)&/(cid:14)(cid:30)&!(cid:31)0 ,(cid:14) 11(cid:14)(cid:21) %)!&/ &(cid:31)% (cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:24)7’ (cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:13)8(cid:25)9(cid:17)(cid:14)7(cid:21)1(cid:14)(cid:23)(cid:20)((cid:15)(cid:12)(cid:1)(cid:17)(cid:14)(cid:16)(cid:24)(cid:21)((cid:12)7(cid:21)(cid:24)(cid:13)(cid:14)((cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:18)(cid:16)(cid:14)((cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:12) (cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:13)8(cid:25)9(cid:17)(cid:14)7(cid:21)1(cid:14)(cid:23)(cid:20)((cid:15)(cid:12)(cid:1)(cid:17)(cid:14)2(cid:12)5(cid:24)((cid:14)((cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:12)(cid:14) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7) (cid:8)(cid:2)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:2)(cid:10)(cid:15)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:16)(cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:15)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:12)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:10)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:13)(cid:19)(cid:2)(cid:10)(cid:1)(cid:11)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:10)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:18) (cid:22)(cid:19)(cid:2)(cid:10)(cid:6)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:10)(cid:23)(cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:13)(cid:6)(cid:13)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:9) (cid:16)(cid:24)(cid:21)((cid:12)7(cid:21)(cid:24)(cid:13)(cid:14)((cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:18)(cid:16)(cid:14)((cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:12)(cid:14)(cid:23)1(cid:14)(cid:28)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:24)9(cid:29) 1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 17.07.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2-Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for short, ‘Tribunal’) by which, respondent No.1 has been allowed the benefit of disability pension by rounding off the disability from 79% to 100% for life i.e. from the day next to date of his discharge from service i.e. 01.09.2019 on the ground that the same is perverse. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon the report of medical examination of respondent No. 1 to hold that though the disabilities of ‘(i) Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease @ 50% (ii) Anxiety disorder unspecified @ 40% (iii) Primary hypertension @ 30%’ have been found in respondent No.1, but the said disabilities have been held to be ‘neither attributable nor aggravated by the Military service’. Hence, the grant of benefit of disability pension to respondent No.1 @ 100% for HARSHA RANI 2025.09.17 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:11) 2 life by the Tribunal by placing reliance upon the judgment of in Dharamvir Singh vs. Union of India and others, (2013) 7 SCC 316 & Union of India and others vs. Ram Avtar, 2014 SCC Online SC 1761 is incorrect. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the case file with his able assistance. 4. It is conceded fact that at the time when respondent No.1 was discharged from service on 31.08.2019, he had already rendered 33 years of service with the petitioners-Union of India. It is also a conceded fact that at the time when respondent No. 1 joined the armed forces i.e. on 11.12.1981 and was discharged from service on 31.12.1998, further the respondent was re-employed in DSC on 31.03.2003, he was medically examined and was found not to be suffering from any such disease. This had been made the basis by the Tribunal while granting benefit to the respondent No.1 by placing reliance upon Dharamvir Singh vs. Union of India and others, (2013) 7 SCC 316. 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 HARSHA RANI 2025.09.17 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:11) 3 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. YES Disability is not related to mil service” 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 HARSHA RANI 2025.09.17 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:11) 4 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.” 5. It should be noted that as per Dharamvir Singh’s case (supra), the entitlement Rules 5 and 9, the presumption is in favour of the army personnel who has suffered disability that same is attributable to and aggravated by military service, and the onus of proof is upon the employer to disprove the same by bringing on record the evidence and substantial medical report which could prove the fact that the disability is neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, which concededly has not been done by the petitioners hence, the claim of the respondent No.1 is rightly adjudicated by the Tribunal. 6. Further, with regard to the grievance of petitioners qua the ‘rounding off of disability pension’ 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 any officer serving in the Armed Forces, who had undergone the medical examination HARSHA RANI 2025.09.17 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:11) 5 at the time of his/her enrolment and was found fit, is subsequently found to be suffering with a disability, is entitled to the benefit of disability pension by rounding off the same as the presumption would be in favour of such employee, that the disability suffered during the service is attributable to the Military service. Relevant paras of the judgment in Ram Avtar’scase (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.
Legal Reasoning
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 HARSHA RANI 2025.09.17 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:11) 6 disability pension.” 7.
Legal Reasoning
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 Dharamvir Singh’s case (supra) and Ram Avtar’s case (supra). 8. 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, has again reiterated that the benefit of rounding off the disability element cannot be denied. 9. 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) and Ram Avtar’s case (supra) as well as Reet M.P.’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) Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease @ 50% (ii) Anxiety disorder unspecified @ 40% (iii) Primary hypertnesion @ 30%’. That being so, the said disabilities have 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 as per the settled principle of law settled in Ram Avtar’s case (supra) and Reet M.P.’s case (supra). 10. Hence, in the absence of any perversity being pointed out in the impugned order dated 17.07.2023 (Annexure P-1) either on the basis of the HARSHA RANI 2025.09.17 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:11) 7 facts or the settled principle of law, no (cid:16)(cid:2)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:5)(cid:14) (cid:10) (cid:13)(cid:4) (cid:10) (cid:24)(cid:11)(cid:14)(cid:3) (cid:10) (cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:6) (cid:10) (cid:22)(cid:19)(cid:2) (cid:10) (cid:11)(cid:5)(cid:25) (cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:2)(cid:22)(cid:3)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:26)(cid:3)(cid:10)(cid:27)(cid:25)(cid:10)(cid:6)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:2)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:10)(cid:6)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:10)(cid:22)(cid:11)(cid:26)(cid:6)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:5)(cid:14)(cid:10)(cid:26)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:26)(cid:17)(cid:24)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:11)(cid:5)(cid:26)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:10)(cid:6)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:10)(cid:23)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:26)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:3) (cid:11)(cid:5)(cid:14)(cid:10)(cid:6)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:10)(cid:28)(cid:2)(cid:13)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:23)(cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:13)(cid:6)(cid:13)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:10)(cid:13)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:26)(cid:26)(cid:19)(cid:2)(cid:14)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:16)(cid:20)(cid:25)(cid:10)(cid:14)(cid:13)(cid:4)(cid:24)(cid:13)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:14)(cid:9) 11.
Decision
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14) (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:28)(cid:16)(cid:24)(cid:21)((cid:12)7(cid:21)(cid:24)(cid:13)(cid:14)((cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:18)(cid:16)(cid:14)((cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:12)(cid:29) (cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:23)(cid:20)(cid:26)(cid:18)(cid:17)(cid:14) ( )(cid:31) *+ ,(cid:14)-(cid:8).(cid:14)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:1)(cid:2) (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:28)2(cid:12)5(cid:24)((cid:14)((cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:12)(cid:29) (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:23)(cid:20)(cid:26)(cid:18)(cid:17)(cid:14) (cid:29)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:2)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:23)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:30)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:16)(cid:31)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:14)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:10) (cid:3)(cid:4) (cid:10)(cid:10)(cid:10)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:10)(cid:10)!(cid:19) (cid:29)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:2)(cid:10)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:23)(cid:19)(cid:2)(cid:6)(cid:11)(cid:27)(cid:20)(cid:3)(cid:10) HARSHA RANI 2025.09.17 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document