IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision :10.11.2025 Union of India and others … Petitioners Versus Ex. Sep Baldev Singh & another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present: Mr. Rohit Verma, Senior Panel Counsel for petitoners-UOI.

* * *

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 03.12.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No. 2-Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) by which, respondent No.1 has been allowed the benefit of invalid pension in respect of the services rendered by him from 30.03.1979 to 26.07.1981.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon the report of medical examination of respondent No. 1 to hold that though the disability of ‘Neurosis’ for two years @ 20% has been found in respondent No.1, but the same has been treated ‘neither attributable to Military Service nor aggravated by the Military service’ hence, the grant of benefit of invalid pension to respondent No. 1 by the Tribunal is incorrect.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that once, the report of the Medical Board clearly states that the disability of respondent No. 1 is neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, the grant of benefit of invalid pension to respondent No. 1 is incorrect, and the facts and circumstances in the present case has not been appreciated in correct aspect by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order dated 03.12.2024 (Annexure P-1).

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 invalidated out from service on 26.07.1981 on medical grounds, he had already rendered 02 years, 03 months and 25 days in 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. 30.03.1979 and was medically examined, he was not found suffering from any such disease on the basis of which, respondent No.1 was ultimately discharged from service on medical ground.

6. Further, as per the settled principle of settled by the Three Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (s)-20330/2011 titled as Union of India and others versus P. A. Thomas, any officer serving with the Military, who had undergone the medical examination at the time of selection and was found fit but subsequently, he/she has been discharged from service before completing the qualifying service, is entitled to the benefit of invalid pension irrespective of the length of service as the disease on the basis of which such officer is being discharged is attributable to the Military service. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are as under:-

“Rules 38 and 49 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 have been amended on 4.1.2019 in the following manner:-

“2. In the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 –

(i) in rule 38, for sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2), the following subrules shall respectively be substituted, namely:-

“(1) The case of a Government servant acquiring a disability, where the provisions of section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 SLP(C) 20339/2011 (49 of 2016) are applicable, shall be governed by the provisions of the said section:

Provided that such employee shall produce a disability certificate from the competent authority as prescribed under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017.

(2) If a Government servant, in a case where the provisions of section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (49 of 2016) are not applicable, retires from the service on account of any bodily or mental infirmity which permanently incapacitates him for the service, he may be granted invalid pension in accordance with rule 49:

Provided that a Government servant, who retires