Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 3734
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, VIKAS SURI, JJ
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
NO 2895961X EX RFN SUNIL KUMAR AND ANOTHER – Respondent
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Narender Kumar Vashist
For the Respondents:
Invalid pension entitlement exists even if disability is not attributed to military service, as long as it manifests during service.
Headnote:(A) Pension Regulation for Army, 1961 - Civil Services Pensions Rules, 1972 - Invalid Pension - The Armed Forces Tribunal allowed invalid pension to the respondent, which was challenged by Union of India on grounds that disability was neither attributable to military service nor aggravated by it, and minimum service period was not met - The Tribunal's order affirmed without concern for any alleged error based on established legal precedents. (Paras 1, 2, 3, 6, 10, 12)
(B) Service Entitlement - Presumption of service-related disabilities arises unless evidence indicates otherwise - Court reaffirmed the principle that any disability arising while in military service is presumed to be linked to service activities, despite medical assessments. (Paras 6, 8)
Facts of the case:
The respondent, medically discharged after 2 years and 7 months of service due to a disease diagnosed post-enrollment, appealed for invalid pension benefits.
Findings of Court:
The presumption of service connection upheld; relevant rules clarified that entitlement exists regardless of length of service once the disability is identified during service.
Issues: The core issue was the attribution of disability to military service and the necessity of meeting the minimum service term for pension eligibility.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the lack of initial disease records and the failure of the Medical Board to justify its conclusions supported the claim for pension benefits - invalidation notwithstanding the minimum service requirement established in precedent case law.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to invalid pension order based on medical assessment. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. invalid pension entitlement argued despite service length issues. (Para 3 , 8) |
| 3. presumption in favor of service-related disabilities upheld. (Para 4 , 7 , 10) |
| 4. legal precedents affirm invalid pension rights despite medical board conclusions. (Para 6 , 9) |
| 5. court dismisses the writ petition. (Para 12 , 13) |
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)
1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 17.11.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No. 2-Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) by which, respondent No.1 has been allowed the benefit of invalid pension for life alongwith arears keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon the report of medical examination of the respondent No. 1 to hold that though the disability of ‘ACUTE LYMPHO BLASTIC LEUKEMIA 207’ as assessed @ 60% for life has been found in respondent No.1, but the same has been treated ‘neither attributable to Military Service nor aggravated by the Military service’ alongwith the fact that necessary period of ten years in service was not completed by respondent No. 1 which is necessary for grant of invalid pension to army personnel, hence, the grant of benefit of invalid pension to respondent No. 1 by placing reliance upon Pension Regulation for Army , 1961 and Civil Services Pensions Rules , 1972 and sthe judgment passed by the Three Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (s)-20330/2011 titled as Union of India and others versus P. A. Thomas is incorrect.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that once, the report of the Medical Board clearly states that the disability of respondent No. 1 is neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, the grant of benefit of invalid pension to respondent No. 1 is incorrect, and the facts and circumstances in the present case has not been appreciated in correct aspect by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order dated 17.11.2023 (Annexure P-1).
4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the case file with his able assistance.
5. It is conceded fact that at the time when respondent No. 1 was relieved from service on 12.02.2002 on medical grounds, he had already rendered 02 years, 07 months of service with the petitioner-Union of India. It is also a conceded fact that at the time when respondent No. 1 joined the armed forces i.e. 05.07.1999 and was medically examined, he was not found suffering from any such disease on the basis of which, respondent No. 1 was ultimately discharged from service on medical ground. That being so, the said disease has to be attributed to the military service and the report of medical board cannot take away the right of respondent No. 1 to claim the benefit of invalid pension in such circumstances.
6. Although, as per settled principles of law settled in Dharamvir Singh vs. Union of India and others , (2013) 7 SCC 316 the presumption is always in favour of an army personnel who has suffered from any disability/decease during his service period that same is attributable to or aggravated by military service, though in the present case, there is no need to dweleve into said aspect as regulations 197 of Pension regulations clearly states that the benefit of invalid pension is to be granted even though the disease/disability which has been made the basis of invalidation from service is neither attributed to nor aggravated by the 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
