JUDGMENT :

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. 

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 03.10.2018 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2-Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) after a period of approximately more than 7 ½ years. The challenge is to the grant of relief of rounding off of disability element of disability pension from 30% to 50% w.e.f 01.06.2002 as admissible keeping in view the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.418 of 2012 titled Union of India and ors Vs. Ram Avtar, decided on 10.12.2014, wherein it has been held that any officer serving in the Armed Forces, who had undergone the medical examination 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.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that the benefit of arrears granted to respondent No.1, in pursuance to granting the benefit of rounding off disability pension from 30% to 50%, which has been granted to respondent No.1 for whole of the intervening period, is incorrect in view of the judgment in Shiv Dass vs. Union of India and ors., (2007) 9 SCC 274, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has explicitly settled that where a claim is raised after a delay, Courts are to restrict the benefit of arrears to 03 years preceding the filing of the original application hence, the grant of disability pension by rounding off @ 50% along with arrears for whole of the intervening period, is incorrect.

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

4. On being asked, once the benefit of rounding off has been allowed on the basis of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ram Avtar’s case (supra), what made the petitioners-UOI to challenge the same after a period of 7 ½ years.

5. Further, the challenge shows that the officer concerned has not been granted relief for the last 7 ½ years despite the fact that the relief so granted is based upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ram Avtar’s case (supra).

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners-UOI was asked to point out the perversity in the impugned order dated 03.10.2018 and she has failed to point out even a single perversity in the said order.

7. Prima facie, the impugned order dated 03.10.2018 has been challenged for the sake of challenge and not for any other purpose.

8. With regard to the grievance of petitioners qua grant of benefit of arrears for whole of the invertening period, as per the settled principle of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.3086 of 2012 titled Balbir Singh vs. Union of India and others, decided on 08.04.2016, wherein also the question for consideration was regarding limiting the benefits of arrears admissible for a period of three years, wherein the benefit of arrears for the entire period, was being claimed by the claimant was granted to the claimant, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held as under:-

“XXX….The Tribunal was therefore justified in restoring the service element of the pension in favour of the appellant. The question however is whether the arrears could have been restricted to three years only. The Tribunal in our view need not to have done so. That is because the appellant had a right to receive service element of the pension in light of Regulation 186 (supra), which right was valuable and ought to have been protected.

We accordingly allow this appeal and modify the order passed by the Tribunal with the direction that the appellant shall be paid service element of the pension with effect from the date the said payment was stopped by the respondents.