IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : May 14, 2026 Union of India and others .. Petitioners Versus Ex. GNR Krishan Chand and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Mr. Dharam Chand Mittal, Senior Panel Counsel, for the petitioners.

Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)

1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 05.03.2019 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No.2- Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) by which, respondent No.1 was held entitled to service element of disability pension from the date of his discharge.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon the medical examination report of respondent No. 1 to contend that though the disability of ‘Fracture Capitellum Lt Humerus (N-824)’ has been found in respondent No.1, but he has been discharged from service on 13.10.1969 at his own request on extreme compassionate grounds before fulfilling the conditions of enrolment under item III (iv) of Rule 13 (3) of Army Rules, 1954. Hence, grant of benefit of service element of disability pension w.e.f. 13.10.1969 by placing reliance upon rules/regulations governing the service is incorrect and the facts of the present case have not been appreciated in correct perspective by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order dated

05.03.2019 (Annexure P-6).

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

4. It is a conceded fact that at the time when respondent No.1 was discharged from service on 13.10.1969 at his own request on compassionate grounds, he had already rendered approximately more than 04 years 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 i.e. on 19.06.1965, he was medically examined and was not found suffering from any such disease.

5. The issue which has to be dealt with in the present case is that whether in a case where percentage of disability has not been mentioned, and discharge from service is at own request of the personnel concerned, whereby such personnel is found to be in low medical category, can benefit of service element of disability pension be granted to such personnel especially when the qualifying service of 15 years has not been completed by the personnel concerned.

6. The first argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners qua the non-mention of the percentage of disability of respondent No.1 in his medical examination report cannot be accepted since once, the disability of ‘Fracture Capitellum Lt Humerus (N-824)’ was clearly mentioned and the personnel was placed in Low Medical Category (CEE) at the time of his discharge, there has to be some percentage of disability even if below 20%, which was found in respondent No.1 and especially when the same is assessed as attributable to military service. Once, disability is assumed to be below 20%, the same is to be treated as 20% as per the judgment in Civil Appeal No.5605 of 2010 titled as Sukhvinder Singh vs. Union of India and others, decided on 25.06.2014, whereby, it has been observed that the injury, which led to being invalidated from service is assessed at less than 20%, then for the purpose of the grant of disability pension, the same has to be treated as a minimum of 20%. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is as under:

“11. We are of the persuasion, therefore, that firstly, any disability not recorded at the time of recruitment must be presumed to have been caused subsequently and unless proved to the contrary to be a consequence of military service. The benefit of doubt is rightly extended in favour of the member of the Armed Forces; any other conclusion would be tantamount to granting a premium to the Recruitment Medical Board for their own negli