IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

239 Date of Decision: 02.09.2025 UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ...Petitioners Versus ARMY No.3169847-M, EX. RECT RAM PHAL SINGH AND ANOTHER ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present:- Mr. Rohit Verma, Senior Panel Counsel, for the petitioners.

Mr. Akash Kundu, Advocate for respondent No.1.

*****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (ORAL)

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 30.03.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2-Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) by which, the disability element of the pension declined to respondent No.1 after conduction of RSMB of respondent No.1 on 03.04.1984, whereby disability was assessed at less than 20%, has been restored by the Tribunal.

2. It may be noticed that respondent No.1 was enrolled in the Army on 20.07.1978 and was invalidated out on 11.04.1980 on medical grounds as the officer was found to be suffering from ‘Tubercular Pleural Effusion RT (IMB) (RT). The Medical Board at that time assessed the disability as 40% for a period of two years i.e. 1980 to 1982 and the disability pension @ 40% was granted to respondent No.1 for the said period and thereafter, disability pension @ 20% was granted for another period of two years after 06.04.1982. Thereafter, the disability element of the pension was stopped after conduction of RSMB of respondent No.1 on the ground that the disability has been rendered as ‘Nil’, as the same was assessed at less than 20%. The said stoppage of the disability element of the pension has been restored by the Tribunal by passing of the impugned order. Learned counsel argues that once the disability has been found to be no longer in iexistence, the action of the authority of withdrawing the benefit of disability element of pension is perfectly valid and legal and without appreciating the said fact, the said benefit has been restored by the Tribunal, which is liable to be set aside.

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

4. It may be noticed that once an officer has been invalidated out of service on the ground of the disability, the benefit of disability pension cannot be stopped or reduced at later stage only on the ground that the disability which was the reason for invalidation, has been either assessed or reduced or, the same has become nil. Once, an officer is not to be taken back in service in case after assessment, the disability is reduced to less than 20%, which is the minimum percentage to invalidate a personnel out of service, the disability element of the pension can also not be stopped. The same has to be granted for life irrespective of the fact that whether the disability which was the reason for invalidating the personnel out of service is in existence or not, otherwise the same will cause prejudice to a soldier.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that once there are two elements for consideration while granting the disability pension, one is disability and the other is service element, and in case the service element continues while the former is discontinued, no prejudice would be caused to the soldier concerned.

6. It may be noticed that the minimum period of service required for grant of benefit of pension under ordinary circumstances is 15 years and the said benefit is to be granted on the basis of the said period of service. But in case, an officer becomes disabled during the service, which disability is assessed as attributed to or aggravated by military service and is consequently invalidated out of service within a period of 2 to 3 years of service, there will be hardly any service element to be taken into consideration for grant of pension so as to survive and lead a dignified life.

7. Once, upon the reduction/absence of the disability, the soldier is not taken back in se