IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 13.03.2026 Union of India and others ....Petitioners Versus Tirath Singh and another ....Respondents

117 CWP-7671-2026 Union of India and others ....Petitioners Versus Ex Nk. Prithvi Raj and another ....Respondents

118 CWP-7682-2026 Union of India and others ....Petitioners Versus Ex Nk. Kamaljit Singh and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI ----

Present: Mr. Rohit Verma, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP-7666-2026 & CWP-7682-2026.

Dr. Anju Sharma, Advocate (through V.C.)

for the petitioners in CWP-7671-2026.

****

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

1. All the petitions, the details of which are mentioned in the heading, involve common point of law and common set of facts, hence, they are being dealt together. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from CWP No.7666 of 2026.

2. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 12.07.2024 (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 held entitled to benefit of disability pension along with benefit of rounding off of disability pension from 20% to 50% w.e.f. 01.01.1996 to 31.12.2015 on the ground that the same is perverse.

3. The only argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Tribunal has wrongly granted the benefit of rounding off the disability pension from 20% to 50% to respondent No.1 by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in K.J.S. Buttar vs. Union of India, 2011 STPL (Web) 316 SC as well as Union of India and others vs. Ram Avtar, 2014 SCC Online SC 1761, thus, the grant of benefit of disability pension to respondent No.1 by rounding off 50% as against 20% is incorrect and the facts of the present case have not been appreciated in correct perspective by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order dated 12.07.2024 (Annexure P-1). He has further argued that benefit of arrears granted to respondent No.1, in pursuance to granting the benefit of rounding off disability pension from 20% to 50%, which has been granted to respondent No.1 for whole of the intervening period, is incorrect in view of the judgment in Shiv Dass vs. Union of India and others, (2007) 9 SCC 274, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has explicitly settled that where a claim is raised after a delay, Courts are to restrict the benefit of arrears to 03 years preceding the filing of the Original Application hence, the grant of disability pension by rounding off @ 50% along with arrears for whole of the intervening period, is incorrect.

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

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to rebut that the respondent was already held entitled for the grant of disability pension and was being paid the same keeping in view the fact that the disability of “Hypertension” suffered by respondent No.1 was held to be attributable to the military service, by the Medical Board. The only grievance raised by respondent No.1 was that his disability of 20% is to be rounded off to 50% keeping in view the settled principle of law as well as the instructions issued on the said aspect.

6. It is a conceded position that as per the settled principle of law settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ram Avtar’s case (supra), any officer serving in the Armed Forces, who had undergone the medical examination at the time of his/her selection and was found fit, subsequently upon suffering a disability, is entitled to the benefit of disability pension by rounding off the same as the presumption would be that the disability suffered is attributable to the Military service. Relevant paras of the judgment in Ram Avtar’s case (supra), are as under:-

“4. By the present set of app