IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 12.12.2025 Union of India and others ....Petitioners Versus No.6925045 M, Ex. Naik (TS) Ranjit Singh and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI ----

Present: Ms. Gurmeet Kaur Gill, Senior Panel Counsel for the petitioners.

****

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 04.07.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2 – Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal), by which, the benefit of disability element of disability pension has been given keeping in view the disability suffered, which has been assessed to the tune of 20% for life w.e.f. 01.10.2006.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though, the accident was suffered by respondent No.1 while in unit and going to the cook house, the same could not have been treated as attributable to the military service, which has wrongly been treated as the same so as to grant the disability pension.

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

4. It may be noticed that the ‘Anterior Dislocation (LT) Shoulder with Fracture Greater Tuberosiy’, was suffered by respondent No.1, disability of which was 20% for life, the same is not being treated having been attributable to the military service or aggravated by the military service.

5. It may be noticed that once the said incident happened within the unit and while going to the cook house, it cannot be said that there is no co- relation with the military service being performed by the respondent at the time of suffering of the incident which led to his disability which was 20%, which led to his discharge.

6. As per the settled principle of law, once there is co-relation even qua the accident suffered which resulted into the disability, which ultimately resulted in the discharge, the disability pension is to be paid.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.1 was drunk at the time when the injury was suffered.

8. On being asked to provide the basis on which, the said assertion is being made, learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any such medical report that at the time when the injury was suffered, respondent No.1 was drunk. Hence, the said fact cannot be brought into operation at this stage to contest the claim of respondent No.1.

9. As per the principle settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Dharamvir Singh versus Union of India and others, (2013) 7 SCC 316 which has also been considered by the Tribunal in the impugned order dated 04.07.2023 (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 to be suffering from any such disease at that time on the basis of which, he/she has been discharged from service, such an employee is entitled for the benefit of presumption in his/her favour as per Rule 5 and 9 of ‘Entitlement Rules for Causality Pensionary Awards, 1982’ that the said disability has been suffered by the employee during his service career and is, thus, entitled for the benefit of disability pension. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are 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