IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

229 Date of Decision: 17.02.2026 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ...Petitioners Versus DES RAJ AND ANR ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present:- Mr. Vishal Sharma, Senior Standing Counsel, for the petitioners.

None for respondent No.1.

*****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (ORAL)

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 20.11.2023 (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 30% for life from the date of his discharge i.e. 01.11.2016.

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 “Primary Hypertension (old)” has been found to be existing in respondent No.1, but the same has been assessed by the Release Medical Board to be ‘neither attributable to 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 20.11.2023 (Annexure P-1) by placing reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Dharamvir Singh versus Union of India and others, (2013) 7 SCC 316 and Union of India and others vs. Ram Avtar , 2014 SCC Online SC 1761 , is incorrect.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 submits that the Tribunal has rightly passed the order dated 20.11.2023 (Annexure P-1) after appreciating the facts and circumstance of the present case as well as the settled principle of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, hence, the same needs no interference by this Court. He requests that the present petition may kindly be dismissed.

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

5. In the present case, it is a conceded fact that respondent No.1 was enrolled in Indian Air Force on 20.02.1978 and was discharged on 31.10.2016 after attaining the age of superannuation. Once, respondent No.1 has served for a period of more than 38 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 38 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. 20.02.1978, 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.

6. 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 20.11.2023 (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