112 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 07.02.2025 Union of India and others …Petitioners Vs.

No.629874 Ex SGT Ram Darshan Roy and another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Present: Mr. S.K. Sharma, Senior Panel Counsel for the petitioners.

***

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral)

1. This writ petition assails the order dated 10.10.2024, passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh, whereby the Tribunal directed to release the disability pension to respondent No.1, who had rendered 29 years of qualifying service from 01.02.1985 to 31.01.2014, as while in service he had suffered ‘primary hypertension’.

2. Learned counsel submits that since he has continued to serve with the forces, the disability pension ought not be released and the disability would not be treated as attributable and aggravated due to military service. The medical board has not given its opinion that the disease was caused on account of military service.

3. We have carefully considered the submissions in the light of averments which were on record before the Tribunal and the judgment passed by it and find that the medical board has assessed the disability @ 30% for life.

4. It is to be noticed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharamvir Singh vs. Union of India (2013) 7 SCC 316, has observed 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 coming to an opinion that the disease could not have been detected on medical examination prior to the acceptance for military service, but nothing is on the record to suggest that any such record was called for by the Medical Board or looked into it and no reasons have been recorded in writing to come to the conclusion that the disability is not due to military service...

32. Inspite of the aforesaid provisions, the Pension Sanctioning Authority failed to notice that the Medical Board had not given any reason in support of its opinion, particularly when there is no note of such disease or disability available in the service record of the appellant at the time of acceptance for military service. Without going through the aforesaid facts the Pension Sanctioning Authority mechanically passed the impugned order of rejection based on the report of the Medical Board. As per Rules 5 and 9 of 'Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982', the appellant is entitled for presumption and benefit of presumption in his favour. In absence of any evidence on record to show that the appellant was suffering from "Generalised seizure (Epilepsy)” at the time of acceptance of his service, it will be presumed that the appellant was in sound physical and mental condition at the time of entering the service and deterioration in his health has taken place due to service...

33. As per Rule 423(a) of General Rules for the purpose of determining a question whether the cause of a disability or death resulting from disease is or is not attributable to service, it is immaterial whether the cause giving rise to the disability or death occurred in an area declared to be a field service/active service area or under normal peace conditions. "Classification of diseases” have been prescribed at Chapter IV of Annexure I; under paragraph 4 post traumatic epilepsy and other mental changes resulting from head injuries have been shown as one of the diseases affected by training, marching, prolonged standing etc. Therefore, the presumption would be that the