IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 02.09.2025 UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ...Petitioners Versus MAJ. RAJEESH K. AND ANOTHER ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present:- Mr.. Narender Kumar Vashist, Senior Panel Counsel, for the petitioners.

*****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (ORAL)

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 14.05.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2-Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) by which, respondent No.1 has been allowed the benefit of disability pension by rounding off the disability element from 20 % to 50 % for life, on the ground that the same is perverse.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon the report of Release Medical Board of respondent No. 1 to hold that though the disability of ‘CARCINOMA ASCENDING COLON (OPTD) P2T2NA[C- 18]’ assessed @ 20% for life has been found in respondent No.1, but the same has been held by the Release Medical Board to be ‘neither attributable to Military Service nor aggravated by the Military service’. Hence, the grant of benefit of disability pension to respondent No.1 @ 50% by the tribunal vide order dated 14.05.2024 (Annexure P-1) by placing reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Dharamvir Singh versus Union of India and others, ( 2013) 7 SCC 316, as well as Union of India and others vs. Ram Avtar, 2014 SCC Online SC 1761, is incorrect.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Narsingh Yadav vs. Union of India and others, (2019) 9 SCC 667, to contend that any disorder not detected at the time of enrolment, cannot be mechanically attributed to military service. He further contends that, as per the said judgment, the presumption that a personnel who was found to be fit at the time of enrolment and was further detected with a disability, such a disability cannot be mechanically presumed to be attributed to and aggravated by military service.

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

5. It is conceded fact that at the time when respondent No. 1 was relieved from service, i.e. 09.04.2022 on medical ground, he had already rendered more than 18 years of service with the petitioner-Union of India. It is also a conceded fact that at the time when respondent No. 1 joined the armed forces i.e. 01.08.2003, he was medically examined and was not found suffering from any such disease, on the basis of which, respondent No. 1 was ultimately discharged from service.

6. As per the settled principle of law settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Dharamvir Singh vs. Union of India and others, (2013) 7 SCC 316, which has also been considered by the Tribunal in the impugned order dated 14.05.2024 (Annexure P-1), any officer serving in the Armed Forces, who had undergone the medical examination at the time of his/her selection and was not found suffering from any such disability/disease at that time on the basis of which, he/she died, such an employee is entitled for the benefit of presumption in his/her favour as per Rule 5 and 9 of ‘Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982’ that the said disease has been contracted by the employee during his service career and thus, his/her heirs are entitled for the benefit of pension. The relevant para No.30, 32 and 33 of the judgment in Dharamvir Singh’s case (supra) is 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 ti