Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India And Others vs Umed Singh And Another on 15 December, 2025
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi, Vikas Suri
CWP-37323-2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(112) CWP-37323-2025
Date of Decision : December 15, 2025
Union of India and others .. Petitioners
Versus
Ex. Sub Umed Singh and another .. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
Present: Mr. Ramesh Chand Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)
1. In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 05.08.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2-Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') by which, respondent No.1 has been allowed the benefit of disability pension by rounding off the disability element @ 50% as against 20% w.e.f. 01.10.2005 to 31.12.2015 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 'Paranoid Schizophrenia, Open Globe Injury CRD Eye Effects at and Primary Open and Primary Open and Glaucoma (Lt) Eye' as assessed @ 20% has been found in respondent No.1, but he has been discharged from service on 30.09.2005 on completion of his terms of engagement under Army Rules. Hence, the grant of benefit of disability pension to respondent No.1 by rounding off the disability element @ 50% 1 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 18-12-2025 01:30:05 ::: CWP-37323-2025 2 as against 20% w.e.f. 01.10.2005 to 31.12.2015 by placing reliance upon the judgment of in Civil Appeal No. 5591-2006 titled as KJS Buttar vs. Union of India and another, decided on 31.03.2011 and Civil Appeal No.418- 2012 Union of India and others vs. Ram Avtar, decided on 10.12.2014 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 05.08.2024 (Annexure P-1). Learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that the benefit of arrears granted to respondent No.1, in pursuance to granting the benefit of rounding off disability pension from 20% to 50%, which has been granted to respondent No.1 for whole of the intervening period, is incorrect in view of the judgment in Shiv Dass vs. Union of India and others, (2007) 9 SCC 274, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has explicitly settled that where a claim is raised after a delay, Courts are to restrict the benefit of arrears to 03 years preceding the filing of the Original Application hence, the grant of disability pension by rounding off @ 50% along with arrears for whole of the intervening period, is incorrect.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the case file with his able assistance.
4. It is conceded fact that at the time when respondent No.1 was discharged from service on 30.09.2005 on completion of his terms of engagement under Army Rules, he had already rendered 17 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. 30.07.1988, he was medically examined and was not found suffering from any such disease, on the basis of which, respondent No. 1 has been granted the benefit of disability pension.
2 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 18-12-2025 01:30:06 ::: CWP-37323-2025 3
5. A perusal of the records reveals that even the Medical Board has assessed disability of 'Paranoid Schizophrenia, Open Globe Injury CRD Eye Effects at and Primary Open and Primary Open and Glaucoma (Lt) Eye' and held to be attributable to the military service, which fact has gone unrebutted. Keeping in view this fact also, when even the Medical Board has conceded that the disease which led to the discharge of the officer concerned was attributable to the military service, filing of the petition by the Union of India is contrary to the recommendations of the Medical Board itself.
6. Further, as per the settled principle of law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ram Avtar's case (supra), 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 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 3 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 18-12-2025 01:30:06 ::: CWP-37323-2025 4 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."
7. 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, 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.
8. With regard to the grievance of petitioners qua grant of benefit of arrears for whole of the intervening period, as per the settled principle of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.3086 of 2012 titled "Balbir Singh vs. Union of India and others", decided on 08.04.2016, wherein also the question for consideration was regarding limiting the benefits of arrears admissible for a period of three years, wherein the benefit of arrears for the entire period, as was being claimed by the claimant was granted to the claimant, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as under:
"XXX....The Tribunal was therefore justified in restoring the service element of the pension in favour of the appellant. The question however is whether the arrears could have been restricted to three years only. The Tribunal in our view need not have done so. That is because the appellant had a right to receive service element of the pension in light of Regulation 186 (supra), 4 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 18-12-2025 01:30:06 ::: CWP-37323-2025 5 which right was valuable and ought to have been protected.
We accordingly allow this appeal and modify the order passed by the Tribunal with the direction that the appellant shall be paid service element of the pension with effect from the date the said payment was stopped by the respondents. We however grant to the respondents three months time to calculate and release the arrears in favour of the appellant. In case the needful is not done within the time stipulated, the arrears payable to the appellant shall start earning interest at the rate of 9% from the date the period of three months expires till actual payment of the amount."
9. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as settled principle of law settled in Ram Avtar's case (supra), Reet MP Singh's case (supra) and Balbir Singh's case (supra), 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 'Paranoid Schizophrenia, Open Globe Injury CRD Eye Effects at and Primary Open and Primary Open and Glaucoma (Lt) Eye'. That being so, claim of respondent No.1 for the benefit of disability pension by rounding off the disability from 20% to 50% as per the settled principle of law settled in Ram Avtar's case (supra) has rightly been allowed by the Tribunal.
10. No other argument has been raised.
11. Hence, in the absence of any perversity being pointed out in the impugned order dated 05.08.2024 (Annexure P-1) 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 case and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
5 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 18-12-2025 01:30:06 ::: CWP-37323-2025 6
12. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
JUDGE
December 15, 2025 (VIKAS SURI)
harsha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
6 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 18-12-2025 01:30:06 :::