IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 20.02.2026 UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS . .Petitioners Versus EX SEP KRISHAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI PRESENT: Mr. Karan Kumar Jund, Senior Panel Counsel for the petitioners.

****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)

1. In the present petition, challenge is to the impugned order dated 13.05.2024 (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 element of disability pension alongwith benefit of rounding off of the disability element of disability pension from 40 % to 50% for life, w.e.f. 01.06.2023.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon the report of medical examination of the respondent No. 1 to hold that though the disability of “Bipolar Affective Disorder” has been found to be existing in respondent No.1, and the said disability was assessed by the Medical Board @ 40% for life but the same was assessed as to be ‘neither attributable to Military Service nor aggravated by the Military service’ and hence, the grant of benefit of disability pension to respondent No. 1 by placing reliance upon the judgment of Tribunal inDharamvir Singh vs. Union of India and others, (2013) 7 SCC 316 , is arbitrary and illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that even the benefit of rounding off of disability pension @ 50% against 40% for life has been wrongly granted to respondent No. 1 and in terms of Union of India and others vs. Ram Avtar, 2014 SCC Online SC 1761

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

4. It is a conceded fact that at the time when respondent No.1 was discharged from service on 31.05.2023, he had already rendered approximately 20 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. on 24.05.2003, he was medically examined and was found not to be suffering from any such disease and was found to be medically fit but at the time of his discharge on 31.05.2023, he was found to be suffering from disability of “Bipolar Affective Disorder”. The said fact had been made the basis by the Tribunal while granting benefit to the respondent No.1 by placing reliance upon the judgment of in Dharamvir Singh ’s case (Supra)

and Ram Avtar’s case (Supra)

5. The grievance of petitioners qua grant of benefit of disability element of disability pension to respondent No.1, It should be noted that as per judgment in Dharamvir Singh vs. Union of India and others, (2013) 7 SCC 316 , in a case where army personnel is found to be fit at the time of enrolment, and has later been found to be contracted with a disease, same is presumed to have been contracted with during the time such personnel was rendering service in military and as such same is to be attributed to military service or be regarded as having been aggravated by military service. And the said presumption in favour of army personnel emerges from Rule 5 and 9 of the “Entitlement Rules for Causality Pensionary Awards, 1982’, which gives the benefit of presumption of such in favour of army personnel. 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 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