IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 20.01.2026 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ...Petitioners Versus KESHAV DEV SARASWAT AND ANR ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present:- Dr. Anandeshwar Gautam, Senior Standing Counsel, for the petitioners.

*****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (ORAL)

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 18.10.2024(Annexure P-1) passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), by which, the respondent No.1 has been held to be entitled for disability element of disability pension @ 50% as against 20% for life from the date of his discharge i.e. 01.08.2022.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon the report of the Release Medical Board of respondent No.1 to hold that though the disability of “Pituitary Macroadenoma with Pituitary Apoplexy (ICD-D 35.9)” @ 20% has been found in respondent No.1, but the same has been held by the Release Medical Board to be ‘neither attributable to Military Service nor aggravated by the Military service’. Hence, the grant of benefit of disability pension @ 50% to respondent No.1 by the Tribunal vide impugned order dated 18.10.2024 (Annexure P-1) by placing reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India and others vs. Ram Avtar , 2014 SCC Online SC 1761 and Dharamvir Singh versus Union of India and others, (2013) 7 SCC 316 , is incorrect.

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

4. In the present case, it is a conceded fact that respondent No.1 was recruited in Army on 15.02.2003 and was discharged on 31.07.2022 under the low medical category. Once, respondent No.1 has served for a period of 19 years, the disability which has occurred during the service period has to be attributed to the military service and it could be the possibility that the same was aggravated by the military service keeping in view the various postings on which respondent No.1 has served during 19 years of service with the petitioner-Union of India. It is also a conceded fact that at the time when the respondent No.1 joined the armed forces i.e. 15.02.2003, he was medically examined and was not found suffering from any such disease, on the basis of which, respondent No.1 was ultimately discharged from service.

5. As per the principle settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in D haramvir Singh versus Union of India and others, (2013) 7 SCC 316, , which has also been considered by the Tribunal in the impugned order dated 18.10.2024(Annexure P-1), any officer serving in the Armed Forces, who had undergone the medical examination at the time of his/her selection and was not found 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 Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982’ that the said disability has been contracted by the employee during his service career and is, thus, entitled for the benefit of disability pension. The relevant para Nos. 30 and 32 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 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 milit