SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 8171

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
BHUMI SINGH AND ANOTHER – Respondent



(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:13)(cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:13)(cid:1)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:14)(cid:13)(cid:18)(cid:21)(cid:13)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:12)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:24)(cid:13)(cid:23)(cid:12)ti(cid:13)(cid:15)(cid:23)(cid:20)(cid:26)(cid:23)(cid:12)(cid:23)

(cid:23)(cid:14)(cid:13)(cid:1)(cid:15)(cid:23)(cid:12)ti(cid:11)(cid:17)(cid:23)(cid:20)(cid:15)(cid:13)

ti(cid:29)(cid:30)(cid:31)(cid:13) !(cid:13)ti(cid:31)"#$# %(cid:13)&(cid:13)(cid:21)(cid:31)’()(cid:29)(*(cid:13)(cid:10)+,(cid:13)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:6)

(cid:19)%# %(cid:13) !(cid:13)(cid:11)%-#(cid:29)(cid:13)(cid:29)%-(cid:13) (cid:30).(cid:31)($(cid:13) //(cid:13)(cid:3)(cid:31)(cid:30)#(cid:30)# %(cid:31)($

0(cid:31)($)$

(cid:16)1/(cid:13)(cid:20)!%/(cid:13)(cid:24).)2#(cid:13)3#%4.(cid:13)(cid:29)%-(cid:13)(cid:29)% (cid:30).(cid:31)((cid:13) //(cid:13)(cid:20)(cid:31)$5 %-(cid:31)%(cid:30)$

(cid:1)(cid:18)(cid:20)(cid:23)6& (cid:15)(cid:18)(cid:12)7(cid:24)8(cid:16)(cid:13)6(cid:20)/(cid:13)(cid:22)(cid:19)3(cid:14)(cid:11)(cid:1)(cid:16)(cid:13)(cid:15)(cid:23)(cid:20)3(cid:11)6(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:12)(cid:13)3(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:13)3(cid:16)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:11)

(cid:15)(cid:18)(cid:12)7(cid:24)8(cid:16)(cid:13)6(cid:20)/(cid:13)(cid:22)(cid:19)3(cid:14)(cid:11)(cid:1)(cid:16)(cid:13)0(cid:11)9(cid:23)3(cid:13)3(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:11)(cid:13)

(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7) (cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:13)(cid:10)(cid:15)(cid:13)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:13)(cid:16)(cid:10)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:2)(cid:10)(cid:1)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:10)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:16)(cid:10)(cid:23)(cid:19)(cid:2)(cid:10)(cid:6)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:10)(cid:24)(cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:18)(cid:6)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:9)

(cid:15)(cid:23)(cid:20)3(cid:11)6(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:12)(cid:13)3(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:13)3(cid:16)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:13)(cid:22)/(cid:13)(cid:27)(cid:18)(cid:20)(cid:23)8(cid:28)

ti(cid:9) In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 20.05.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2-Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) by which, respondent No.1 has been allowed the benefit of disability pension along with benefit of rounding off of the disability element from 50% (composite) to 75% for life w.e.f. 01.01.1996 on the ground that the same is perverse.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon the report of medical examination of respondent No. 1 to contend that though the disability of ‘Epilepsy and Flexor Tendon Injury (LT) Hand’ has been found to be existing in respondent No.1, but the said disability has been assessed to be ‘neither attributable to nor aggravated by the Military service’ by the Medical Board. Hence, the grant of benefit of disability pension to respondent No.1 @ 75% as against 50% for life by the Tribunal by placing reliance upon the judgment of in Union of India and others vs.

Ram Avtar, 2014 SCC Online SC 1761 and Dharamvir Singh vs. Union of India and others, (2013) 7 SCC 316 is incorrect.

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

4. It is conceded fact that at the time when respondent No.1 invalided out from service on 30.11.1980, he had already rendered more than 06 years and 03 days of service with the petitioners-Union of India. It is also a conceded fact that at the time when respondent No. 1 joined the armed forces on 28.11.1974, he was medically examined and was found not to be suffering from any such disease on the basis of which he has been allowed the benefit of disability pension and the said fact has been made the basis by the Tribunal while granting benefit to the respondent No.1 by placing reliance upon Dharamvir Singh’s case (supra)

5.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top