112 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 19-02-2026 UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ........Petitioner(s)

VERSUS EX SUB/HONY LT. PIARA SINGH AND ANOTHER ........Respondent(s)

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

***

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral)

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 23.01.2019 (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 @ 50% as against 20% w.e.f 01.04.1996 to 03.07.2011 and then w.e.f. 26.12.2011 for life, on the ground that the same is perverse.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that respondent No.1 is not entitled to the benefit of rounding off the disability pension from 20%

to 50% and the tribunal has wrongly granted the said benefit by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.418 of 2012 titled Union of India and ors Vs. Ram Avtar, decided on 10.12.201 4and also the arrears qua disability pension to respondent No.1, should be restricted to three years, hence, the order passed by the Tribunal is incorrect and the facts of the present case have not been appreciated in the correct perspective by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order dated 23.01.2019 (Annexure P-1).

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

4. It is a conceded fact that at the time when respondent No.1 was discharged from service on 31.03.1996 upon completion of his term of engagement under Army Rule 13(3) Item III (i), he had already rendered 28 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. 29.03.1968, he was medically examined and was not found suffering from any such disease, on the basis of which, respondent No. I 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 “Corneal Opacity (LT) EYE (371)” @ 20%, which is held to be attributable to 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 military service, filing of the petition by the Union of India is contrary to the recommendations of the Medical Board itself.

6. Once, the admissibility of the benefit of disability pension to the respondent No.1 is not being disputed by the petitioners before this Court, the grant of arrears qua disability pension to respondent No. I cannot be restricted to a period of three years.

7. Being a model employer, the Union has to extend the benefit of disability pension for which the disabled person is entitled at the time of relieving him/her from service concerned on the ground of said disability.

8. Merely, that the employee has not claimed the benefit admissible to him/her immediately, but when the same is claimed, the benefit so admissible to an employee has to be given from the date of his/her entitlement so that such disabled employee does not suffer due to the inaction on the part of the Union in not granting him/her the benefit admissible.

9. As per the principle of law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as 'Balbir Singh Vs. Union of India and Others Civil Appeal No. 3086 of 2012 decided on 08.04.2016, the benefit of arrears cannot be restricted and the respondents cannot be allowed to take the benefit of their own wrong. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is extracted hereinafter:

"The Tribunal was therefore justified in res