Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India And Others vs Havildar Pawan Kumar on 23 February, 2026
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi, Vikas Suri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: 23.02.2026
118
CWP-5434-2026
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
...Petitioners
Versus
EX SEPOY GURMUKH SINGH
...Respondent
119
CWP-5453-2026
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
...Petitioners
Versus
EX SEPOY HARI SINGH
...Respondent
121
CWP-5479-2026
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
...Petitioners
Versus
HAVILDAR PAWAN KUMAR
...Respondent
127
CWP-5608-2026
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
...Petitioners
Versus
COL SANDEEP SATWALEKAR (RETD) AND ANR
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
Present:- Mr. Rohit Verma, Senior Standing Counsel,
for the petitioners in CWP-5608-2026.
Mr. N.K. Verma, Senior Standing Counsel,
for the petitioners in remaining three writ petitions.
Mr. Arishit Goel, Advocate,
for respondent No.1 in CWP-5608-2026.
*****
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (ORAL)
1. By this order, we propose to dispose of aforementioned four 1 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 06-03-2026 23:53:09 ::: CWP-5434-2026 & connected cases (2) writ petitions by a common order as the issue involved in these writ petitions is the same. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties and for the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from CWP-5479-2026.
2. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 13.03.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), by which, the respondent No.1 has been held to be entitled for disability element of disability pension @50% as against 20% for life w.e.f. 02.06.2009 and also the arrears thereof.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon the report of the Release Medical Board of respondent No.1 to hold that though the disabilities of "(I) DM Type-11, (ii) Multiple Cervial & Lumber Disc Degeneration with PIVD C4-5 & 4-5 and (iii) Spina Bifida LV-5 SI" have been found in respondent No.1, but disability Nos.(i) and (iii) have been held by the Release Medical Board to be 'neither attributable to nor aggravated by the Military service' and disability No.(ii) considered as aggravated by military service. Further, at the time of release, his disability was assessed @20% composite for life and held to be neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service but less than 20%. Hence, the grant of benefit of disability pension and the benefit of round off @ 50% to respondent No.1 by the Tribunal vide impugned order dated 13.03.2023 (Annexure P-1) by placing reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India and others vs. Ram Avtar, 2014 SCC Online SC 1761 and Dharamvir Singh versus Union of India and others, (2013) 7 SCC 316, is incorrect.
2 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 06-03-2026 23:53:09 :::
CWP-5434-2026 & connected cases (3)
4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the case file with their able assistance.
5. In the present case, it is a conceded fact that respondent No.1 was recruited in Army on 27.05.1985 and was discharged on 01.06.2009 under the low medical category. Once, respondent No.1 has served for a period of 24 years and 05 days, the disability which has occurred during the service period has to be attributed to the military service and there could be a possibility that the same was aggravated by the military service keeping in view the various postings on which respondent No.1 has served during 24 years of service with the petitioner-Union of India. It is also a conceded fact that at the time when the respondent No.1 joined the armed forces i.e. 27.05.1985, he was medically examined and was not found suffering from any such disease, on the basis of which, respondent No.1 was ultimately discharged from service on 01.06.2009 after completing 24 years and 05 days of service.
6. 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 13.03.2023 (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 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 Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982' that the said disability has been contracted by the employee during his service career and 3 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 06-03-2026 23:53:09 ::: CWP-5434-2026 & connected cases (4) is, thus, entitled for the benefit of disability pension. The relevant para Nos. 30 and 32 of the judgment in Dharamvir Singh's case (supra) 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 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 4 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 06-03-2026 23:53:09 ::: CWP-5434-2026 & connected cases (5) 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 seizure (Epilepsy)" at the time of acceptance of his service, it will be presumed that the appellant was in sound physical and mental condition at the time of entering the service and deterioration in his health has taken place due to service."
7. Further, as per the settled principle of law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.418/2012 in Union of India and others vs. Ram Avtar, 2014 SCC Online SC 1761, wherein it has been held that an Armed Forces personnel is entitled to be granted the benefit of rounding off with regard to disability pension, irrespective of the fact that he was invalidated out of service, or retired on attaining the age of superannuation or on completion of his tenure of his engagement, if found to be suffering from some disability which is attributable or aggravated by the Military service. Relevant paras of the judgment in Ram Avtar's case (supra) are as under:-
"4. By the present set of appeals the appellant(s) raise the question, whether or not, an individual, who has retired on attaining the age of superannuation or on completion of his tenure of engagement, if found to be suffering from some disability which is attributable to or aggravated by the military service, is entitled to be granted the benefit of rounding-off of 5 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 06-03-2026 23:53:09 ::: CWP-5434-2026 & connected cases (6) disability pension. The appellant(s) herein would contend that, on the basis of Circular No. 1(2)/97/D(Pen-C) issued by the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, dated 31.01.2001, the aforesaid benefit is made available only to an Armed Forces Personnel who is invalidated out of service, and not to any other category of Armed Forces Personnel mentioned hereinabove.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
6. We do not see any error in the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) and therefore all the appeals which pertain to the concept of rounding-off of the disability pension are dismissed, with no order as to costs.
7. The dismissal of these matters will be taken note of by the High Courts as well as by the Tribunals in granting appropriate relief to the pensioners before them, if any, who are getting or are entitled to the disability pension."
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in recent judgment passed in Civil Appeal No.11311 of 2025, decided on 01.09.2025 titled as Union of India and others vs. Reet MP Singh and another, that the grant of benefit of rounding off the disability as per Ram Avtar's case (supra) has again been upheld, which fact has gone un-rebutted at the hands of the petitioners.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to dispute the said proposition of law having been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Dharamvir Singh's case (supra), Ram Avtar's case (supra) and Reet MP Singh's case (supra).
10. Keeping in view the settled principle of law settled in 6 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 06-03-2026 23:53:09 ::: CWP-5434-2026 & connected cases (7) Dharamvir Singh's case (supra), Ram Avtar's case (supra) and Reet MP Singh's case (supra) as well as the facts and circumstances of the present case that at the time of selection, the respondent No.1 was medically examined and was found fit in all respects and it was only after respondent No.1 rendered service for 24 years with the petitioner-UOI, he was found to be suffering from aforesaid disability along with the fact that no cogent evidence/material or detailed medical record has been brought on record to show this Court that the disability is not attributable to military service. That being so, the said disability has 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.
CWP-5434-2026
11. It may be noticed that the Union of India has raised the claim that the officer concerned did not had 15 years service in his credit to get the benefit of service element while fixing the disability pension, but, the said question of law is no longer res integra as, the same has already been decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 4714-4715 of 2012 titled as Union of India and others versus V. R. Nanukuttan Nair, decided on 07.11.2019, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was dealing with the similar service regulations of Navy. The regulation 107 of the Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964 which was mentioned in the said judgment is the pari materia to the service regulations No. 183 of the Pension Regulation for the Army Act, 1961, which is applicable in the present case.
12. After considering the said regulations, the findings which have 7 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 06-03-2026 23:53:09 ::: CWP-5434-2026 & connected cases (8) been recorded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph No. 19 is as under:-
"19) In view of the principles of interpretation relating to Casus Omissus, we find that a reading of the Regulations does not lead to an inference that the service element should be limited to an individual who has completed minimum 15 years of engagement. Regulation 78 cannot be read into Regulation 105B when no such qualification is provided in Regulation 105B. "
13. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to rebut the said settled principle of law.
14. Not only this, the similar issue was rased by the Union of India in CWP No. 2412 of 2025, titled as "Union of India and others versus No.763665 Ex Cpl Kishor Chandra Mohanty and another", decided on 29.01.2025 and after imposing the cost of Rs. 25, 000/-, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, dismissed the said writ petition by recording the findings that despite settled principle of law, the writ petitions are being filed by the Union of India by ignoring the provisions of law.
15. Once again, the Coordinate Bench of this Court while dismissing three writ petitions filed by the Union of India i.e. CWP-1947- 2025 on the same cause by recording the findings that the "service element"
is being confused with the "service pension", which is incorrect and similar writ petitions were dismissed.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to rebut the said judgments which have been referred herein before according to which even if, an officer has completed less than 15 years in service but was discharged from service on the ground of disability suffered by the officer 8 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 06-03-2026 23:53:09 ::: CWP-5434-2026 & connected cases (9) concerned during the service, which disability was attributable to the military service, the service element has to be taken into account as per the regulations 183 of the 1961 regulations.
17. Further, with regards to the grievance raised that respondent No.1 had served in the DSC for 14 years and 56 days and is not entitled for the disability pension, it is relevant to refer to a verdict rendered by the learned Tribunal concerned in case Original Application No.324 of 2016 titled as Om Parkash Guleria Vs. Union of India and others, decided on 10.08.2018, wherein a similar question was put forth before the Tribunal concerned, that 'whether the applicant who was in receipt of army pension at the time of his re-enrollment in the DSC, is entitled to the disability pension in the DSC service also?' the learned Tribunal concerned after considering the relevant regulations observed that in terms of Regulation 179 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, the applicant was entitled to disability pension consisting of service element as well as disability element. Further, the Tribunal also observed that the mere fact that the applicant was in receipt of pension of his first spell of Army service does not disentitle him to became an able recipient of the component of disability pension thus for the second spell of service in the DSC. The said verdict was challenged by the Union of India before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was upheld by the Apex Court in its verdict rendered in case titled as Union Of India & Ors. Vs. Om Prakash Guleria, decided on 27.08.2021, to which Civil Appeal No. (Diary No. 9346 of 2021) became assigned. The relevant paragraphs, as occur in the said verdict are extracted hereinafter.
"2. Besides the delay of 515 days in filing the appeal, which has not been satisfactorily explained, even on 9 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 06-03-2026 23:53:09 ::: CWP-5434-2026 & connected cases (10) merits, we find no error in the judgment dated 10 August 2021 of the Armed Forces Tribunal. The Tribunal has correctly construed the provisions of the pension regulations and the ultimate conclusion, entitling the respondent to the service element of the disability pension and the benefit of rounding off, does not suffer from any error.
3. The Civil Appeal is, therefore, dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits."
18. No other argument has been raised.
19. Hence, in the absence of any perversity being pointed out in the impugned orders dated 13.03.2023 (Annexure P-1) in CWP-5479-2026; 02.12.2019 (Annexure P-1) in CWP-5434-2026; 26.07.2022 (Annexure P-1) in CWP-5434-2026; and 24.04.2025 (Annexure P-1) in CWP-5608-2026; passed by the Tribunal either on the basis of the facts or the settled principle of law, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present cases.
20. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed.
21. Photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected cases.
( HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI )
JUDGE
( VIKAS SURI )
February 23, 2026 JUDGE
harish
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable No
10 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 06-03-2026 23:53:09 :::