IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision :20.11.2025 Union of India and others …Petitioners Versus Ex. Hav ACP 1 Babu Lal & another … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present: Mr. S.K. Sharma, Senior Panel Counsel for petitioners-UOI.

* * *

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 23.08.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2-Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) by which, respondent No.1 has been allowed the benefit of disability pension by rounding off the disability element from 40% to 50%

w.e.f. 01.08.2006 to 31.12.2015.

2. The only argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that respondent No.1 is not entitled to the benefit of rounding off the disability pension from 40% to 50% by placing reliance upon the judgment in Civil Appeal No. 5591-2006 titled as KJS Buttar vs. Union of India and another, decided on 31.03.2011 and Civil Appeal No.418-2012 Union of India and others vs. Ram Avtar, decided on 10.12.2014 and the facts of the present case have not been appreciated in correct perspective by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order dated 23.08.2024 (Annexure P-1).

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

4. It is a conceded fact that at the time when respondent No.1 was discharged from service on 31.07.2006 on completion of his terms of engagement under Army Rule 13(3) Item III (i), he had already rendered 26 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. 19.07.1980 he was medically examined and was not found suffering from any such disease, on the basis of which, respondent No.1 has been granted the benefit of disability pension.

5. A bare perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal which states that even the Medical Board has assessed the disability of ‘Spondylosis L5-S, PIVD L4-5 L5-S1 (M-51)’ which disability is held to be attributable to the military service and the said fact has gone unrebutted. Keeping in view this fact also, when even the Medical Board has conceded that the disease which led to the discharge of the officer concerned was attributed to the military service, filing of the petition by the Union of India is contrary to the recommendations of the Medical Board itself.

6. Further, as per the settled principle of law settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ram Avtar’s case (supra), any officer serving in the Armed Forces, who had undergone the medical examination at the time of his/her selection and was found fit, subsequently upon suffering a disability, is entitled to the benefit of disability pension by rounding off the same as the presumption would be that the disability suffered is attributable to 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 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.

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 con