Case Law
Subject : Service Law - Military & Armed Forces
Chandigarh – The Punjab and Haryana High Court has delivered a significant ruling reinforcing the rights of armed forces personnel to disability pension, dismissing a petition filed by the Union of India against an order of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT). The bench, comprising Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Vikas Suri, held that if a soldier is medically fit upon joining the service, any disability developed later is presumed to be attributable to or aggravated by military service.
The case, Union of India vs Ex. Sub Dilawar Singh , involved a challenge to a 2022 AFT order that granted Ex. Subedar Dilawar Singh disability pension by rounding off his 20% disability to 50% for life. Dilawar Singh, who had served for over 28 years since his enlistment in 1984, was diagnosed with "PIVD L4-5 & L5-S1" (Prolapsed Intervertebral Disc) upon his discharge in 2012.
The Union of India, acting as the petitioner, contested the AFT's decision primarily on the grounds of a Medical Board report. Their counsel argued that the report explicitly stated the disability was ‘neither attributable to Military Service nor aggravated by the Military service’. Therefore, they contended, the grant of disability pension, especially with the rounding-off benefit, was fundamentally incorrect and perverse.
The respondent's case, upheld by the AFT and subsequently the High Court, rested on the fact that he was found medically sound and free of any disease when he joined the armed forces. The disability manifested only during his long tenure of service.
The High Court decisively sided with the retired soldier, grounding its judgment in established Supreme Court precedents. The bench underscored the principles laid down in two landmark cases:
Dharamvir Singh vs. Union of India (2013) : The Court cited this judgment to emphasize the legal presumption in favor of the soldier. The Supreme Court had held that in the absence of any note of a pre-existing disease in the service record at the time of entry, it is presumed that the individual was in sound health and any subsequent deterioration is due to military service. The High Court noted, "it was incumbent on the part of the Medical Board to call for records and look into the same before coming to an opinion," which was not demonstrated.
Union of India vs. Ram Avtar (2014) : This judgment was crucial for upholding the rounding-off of the disability percentage. The Supreme Court had settled the law that any personnel suffering from a service-attributable disability is entitled to the benefit of rounding off.
The bench articulated its reasoning clearly in the judgment:
"once at the time of selection, respondent No. 1 was medically examined and was found fit in all respects and it was only during the service, respondent No.1 was found suffering from the “PIVD L4-5 & L5-S1”. That being so, the said disabilities have to be attributed to the military service and the report of Medical Board cannot take away the right of respondent No. 1 to claim the benefit of disability pension..."
The Court found that the petitioner's counsel was unable to dispute the settled legal positions established by the Supreme Court in these cases.
Finding no perversity in the AFT's order, either factually or legally, the High Court dismissed the Union of India's writ petition. The decision reaffirms a critical protection for military veterans, ensuring that the burden of proof lies with the establishment to disprove the service connection for disabilities that arise during a soldier's career, provided they were fit upon entry. It also solidifies the entitlement to the rounding-off benefit, which provides greater financial security to disabled veterans.
#DisabilityPension #ArmedForces #ServiceLaw
Vague 'Bad Work' Can't Presume Penetrative Sexual Assault Under POCSO Section 4 Without Evidence: Patna High Court
28 Apr 2026
Limiting Crop Damage Compensation to Specific Wild Animals Excluding Birds Violates Article 14: Bombay HC
28 Apr 2026
Appeal Limitation in 1991 Police Rules Yields to Uttarakhand Police Act 2007 on Inconsistency: Uttarakhand HC
28 Apr 2026
Nashik Court Reserves Verdict on Khan's TCS Bail Plea
29 Apr 2026
Delhi Court Grants Bail to I-PAC Director in PMLA Case
30 Apr 2026
No Historic Record of Saraswati Temple Demolition, Muslim Body Tells MP High Court in Bhojshala Dispute
30 Apr 2026
No Absolute Bar on Simultaneous Parole/Furlough for Co-Accused Under Delhi Prisons Rules: Delhi High Court
30 Apr 2026
Rejection of Jurisdiction Plea under Section 16 Arbitration Act Not Challengeable under Section 34 Till Final Award: Supreme Court
30 Apr 2026
'Living Separately' Under Section 13B HMA Means Cessation Of Marital Obligations, Regardless Of Residence: Patna High Court
30 Apr 2026
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.