IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: 02.04.2026 Union of India and others …Petitioners Versus Smt Baljit Kaur and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Mr. Ashish Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioners.

****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (ORAL)

In the present petition, the challenge is to the order dated 08.05.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Armed Force Tribunal in OA No.280 of 2016, by which, the benefit of special family pension has been given to the respondent No.1. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that in the present case the death of the husband of the respondent No.1 occurred while availing the leave due to “Cardio Respiratory Arrest”, and such death cannot be said to be attributed to the military service and therefore, the grant of the benefit of the special family pension as directed by the Tribunal to be granted is incorrect.

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

4. It may be noticed that the husband of the respondent No.1 was enrolled in the Army on 08.02.1999. At the time of enrollment, he was medically examined and he was found fit in all respect to perform his duties required. After rendering 13 years of service, while on leave, the husband of the respondent No.1 died on 12.07.2012. The said death was ascertained to be due to “Cardio Respiratory Arrest”. The said ailment is only due to the stress and strains attributable to the job profile, which the husband of the respondent No.1 was performing for the period of 9 years.

5. As per the settled principle of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Dharamvir Singh vs. Union of India and others, (2013) 7 SCC 316, any officer, who was enrolled in a fit medical condition but suffers any ailment during the service, the same has to be attributed to the military service.

The relevant paragraph of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:-

“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 prior to the acceptance for military service, but nothing is on the record to suggest that any such record was called for by the Medical Board or looked into it and no reasons have been recorded in writing to come to the conclusion that the disability is not due to military service. In fact, non-application of mind of Medical Board is apparent from Clause (d) of paragraph 2 of the opinion of the Medical Board, which is as follows:

“(d) In the case of a disability under C the board should state what exactly in their opinion is the cause thereof. YES Disability is not related to mil service”

32. In spite of the aforesaid provisions, the Pension Sanctioning Authority failed to notice that the Medical Board had not given any reason in support of its opinion, particularly when there is no note of such disease or disability available in the service record of the appellant at the time of acceptance for military service. Without going through the aforesaid facts the Pension Sanctioning Authority mechanically passed the impugned order of rejection based on the report of the Medical Board. As per Rules 5 and 9 of 'Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982', the appellant is entitled for presumption and benefit of presumption in his favour. In absence of any evidence on record to show that the appellant was suffering from "Genrealised