232 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 28-01-2026 UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ........Petitioner(s)

VERSUS EX SEP SITA RAM AND ANOTHER ........Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present: Mr. Rohit Verma, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. R.L. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondents.

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral)

1. In the present petition, challenge is to the impugned order dated 25.02.2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2-Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench Chandigarh (in short, ‘the Tribunal’) by which, respondent No.1 has been allowed the benefit of disability pension by rounding off the disability element from 20 % to 50% for two years, from the day next to the date of his discharge from service i.e. from 01.09.1999 to

31.08.2001.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon the report of medical examination of respondent No.1 to hold that though the disability of “CARDIAL ARRHYTHMIA ICD 427” assessed @ 20% for two years has been found in respondent No.1, but he said disability has been held to be ‘neither attributable to nor aggravated by the Military service’. Hence, the grant of benefit of disability pension to respondent No.1 @ 50% as against 20% for two years by the Tribunal by placing reliance upon the judgment of in Union of India and others vs. Ram Avtar, 2014 SCC Online SC 1761 and Dharamvir Singh vs. Union of India and ors, (2013)

7 SCC 316, is incorrect.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the Defence Security Corps (DSC) Service, a minimum service of 15 years was required to earn service pension as per Regulation 271 of Pension Regulation for Army 1961 whereas the learned Tribunal has granted the benefit of service element to respondent No.1 inspite of the fact that he has not completed pensionable service of 15 years and he himself has been unwilling for further extension.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the ld. Tribunal was not correct in directing to conduct a Re-survey Medical Board (RSMB) after 20 years of discharge.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioners are misreading the “service element” with “service pension” which is entirely different.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the disability pension alongwith the “service element” is to be given under the Regulations 183 of the Pension Regulation for the Army Act, 1961 which provision has been interpreted more than once not only by this Court but also by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and it has been categorically held that “service element” has no relation with “service pension” and the disability pension is to be calculated only by taking into consideration the “service element”.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records with their able assistance.

8. It is conceded fact that at the time when respondent No.1 was discharged from Defence Security Corps on 31.08.1999, he had already rendered 10 years and 23 days of service with the DSC, petitioners-Union of India. It is also a conceded fact that at the time when respondent No.1 was re-enrolled in DSC on 09.08.1989, he was medically examined and was found not to be suffering from any such disease on the basis of which he has been allowed the benefit of disability pension and the said fact has been made the basis by the Tribunal while granting benefit to the respondent No.1 by placing reliance upon Dharamvir Singh’s case (supra).

9. It should be noted that as per judgment in Dharamvir Singh’s case(supra) in a case where army personnel is found to be fit at the time of enrolment, and has later found to be contracted with a disease, same is presumed to have been aggravated by and attributable to 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