IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 25.08.2025 UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS . .Petitioners Versus JAI BHAGWAN AND ANOTHERS . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI PRESENT: Mr. Dharm Chand Mittal, Senior Panel Counsel for the petitioners .

****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 14.10.2024 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No. 2-Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (for short the Tribunal), by which, the Tribunal held that the injury suffered by the respondent No. 1 in the road accident on 02.04.2009 while he was availing leave was aggravated by the military service, which lead to his discharge from service w.e.f. 31.03.2014, and on the said ground he has been granted the benefit of disability pension by rounding off disability of 20 % to 50 % in view the settled principle of law settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India and others versus Ram Avtar, 2014 SCC ONLINE, SC 1761, 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no material evidence has come on record to show that the injury suffered by respondent No. 1 in the road accident which happened on 02.04.2009 was aggravated by the military service, hence, the view of the Tribunal holding that the injury suffered by the respondent No. 1 in the said road accident has been aggravated by the miliary service is without any evidence/cogent material on record and therefore, the impugned order dated 14.10.2024 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Tribunal by placing reliance upon entitlement rule/or causality pensionary Award, 1982 for the purpose of granting benefit of disability pension by vitiating the assessment made in the medical record and on Ram Avtar’s Case (supra) for purpose of rounding off the disability from 20 % to 50 % is incorrect, hence, the impugned award passed by the Tribunal needs to be set-aside.

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

4. It may be noticed that an injury in the lower back was suffered by respondent No. 1 in a road accident on 02.04.2009 and thereafter, he was posted to render his service at High Altitude Area, Batalic Sector, Jammu & Kashmir from the year 2009 to 2011, where even walking is also a very difficult task. The said fact clearly shows that though the injury has not been attributed to the military service but, the said injury has been aggravated by the military service which lead to discharge of the respondent No. 1 from military service.

5. The Tribunal has placed reliance upon the Regulation 19 of the 1982 Rules which states that aggravation in injury is to be accepted unless any worsening in his/her condition was not due to his service. The said regulation has been rightly applied by the Tribunal as the language of the Regulation clearly suggests that this is a positive regulation, where aggravation in injury is generally to be accepted as due to injury, unless the same has not been worsened by service, which fact has to be proved by the employer not the employee, as the onus of proof as per entitlement rules is upon the employer as these are beneficial legislation made for benefit of an employee.

6. Hence, the contention of the petitioner- UOI that no evidence or material has been produced on record which could pursue the Tribunal for recording the conclusion of granting the benefit of disability pension stands defeated.

7. Further, as per the settled principle of settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India and others versus Ram Avtar, 2014 SCC ONLINE, SC 1761, any officer serving with the Military , who had undergone the medical examination at the time of selection and was found fit, subsequently upon suffering a disability is entitled to the benefit of rounding off of disability pension as the presumption would be that the disability suffered is attributable to the