IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 05.02.2026 Amarjit Singh ....Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI ----

Present: Mr. R.K.Chauhan, Advocate Mr. Ankush Chauhan, Advocate and Mr. Vikramjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Shalini Atri, Senior Panel Counsel (through V.C)

for respondents – UOI.

****

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 05.11.2024 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.2 – Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal), by which, the claim of the petitioner for the grant of pensionary benefit has been declined on the ground of delay.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that pension is a continuance allowance and a continuing cause of action and therefore, the denial of benefit of pension on the ground of delay, is incorrect. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.4100 of 2022 titled as M.L.Patil (dead) through LRs vs. State of Goa and another, decided on 20.05.2022, to contend that pension is a continuance allowance and the same cannot be dismissed on the ground of delay.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once it has already come on record that the disability suffered by petitioner was the reason for discharging the petitioner from service in low medical category, merely that the same has been assessed to be neither attributable to nor aggravated by the military service so as to deny him the grant of disability pension, which view has been accepted by the Tribunal is not incorrect, keeping in view the settled principle of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Dharamvir Singh versus Union of India and others, (2013)

7 SCC 316

4. The learned counsel for the respondent – UOI submits that the petitioner should have been vigilant enough to raise the grievance in the prescribed time frame but as the same has been raised after a period of 30 years, the denial of the benefit claim by petitioner by the Tribunal is perfectly valid and the impugned order passed by the Tribunal may kindly be upheld.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file with their able assistance.

6. It may be noticed that petitioner joined the Armed forces on 08.08.1981 in a fit medical condition. While in service, he suffered from a disability of “Schizo Affective Psychosis (old)” which was assessed @30% and ultimately the petitioner was discharged from service on 30.09.1992. However, the petitioner was not granted the benefit of disability element of disability pension on the ground that the said disability is neither attributable to nor aggravated by the military service.

7. Qua said aspect, it shall be noted that as per the principle settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Dharamvir Singh versus Union of India and others, (2013) 7 SCC 316, any officer serving in the Armed Forces, who had undergone the medical examination at the time of his/her selection and was not found to be 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 Causality Pensionary Awards, 1982’ that the said disability has been suffered by the employee during his service career and is, thus, entitled for the benefit of disability pension. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment 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