Union of India and Others v. Vanit Passi

THEoHIGHoCOURToOFoPUNJABoANDoHARYANAo AToCHANDIGARH 127 CWP-13750-2025 DateoofoDecision:o21.08.2025 UnionoofoIndiaoandoothers ....Petitioners Versus IC54262KoLt.oCol.oVanitoPassi ....Respondent CORAM:oooHON'BLEoMR.oJUSTICEoHARSIMRANoSINGHoSETHI HON'BLEoMR.oJUSTICEoVIKASoSURI o oo---- Present: Ms.oGehnaoVaishnavi,oSenioroPaneloCounsel forotheopetitioners. Mr.oNavdeepoSingh,oAdvocateoand Ms.oRoopanoAtwal,oAdvocateoforotheorespondent. o **** ��������������������������������

¶1Inotheopresentopetition,otheochallengeoisotootheoimpugnedoorder dated o 18.11.2022 o (Annexure o P-1) o o passed o by o Armed o Forces o Tribunal, RegionaloBench,oChandigarho(hereinafteroreferredotooaso'theoTribunal),oby which,otheorespondentohasobeenoheldotoobeoentitledotoodisabilityoelementoof disabilityopensionobyoroundingooffodisabilityoofo30%otoo50%.

¶2Learnedocounseloforotheopetitionersoplacesorelianceouponothe reportoofomedicaloexaminationoofotheorespondentotoocontendothatothoughothe disabilityoofo"PrimaryoHypertension"oassessedo@o30%oforolifeohasobeenofound inorespondent,obutotheosameohasobeenoheldotoobeo'neitheroattributableoto MilitaryoServiceonoroaggravatedobyotheoMilitaryoservice'oandohence,otheogrant ofobenefitoofodisabilityopensionotoorespondentobyoplacingorelianceouponothe judgmentoino��������������������������������������������������(2013)o7 VARINDERgPRASHAD 2025.08.27g19:51 Igattestgtogthegaccuracygofgthis

!"#$% &%&$ '&' 4-

   ""  "

    *  +    * *  *+"   +

    

() ,4#0!# 4-   *    *  +"0%1 2%1      0 Learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Narsingh Yadav vs. Union of India and others, (2019) 9 SCC 667, to contend that any disorder not detected at the time of enrollment, cannot be mechanically attributed to military service. He further contends that, as per the said judgment, the presumption that a personnel who was found to be fit at the time of enrollment and was further detected with a disability, such a disability cannot be mechanically presumed to be attributed to and aggravated by military service. 8 9           

  *     2 !       "     "

 %:%$$%$%   *  +   " %2+ 



  (; ! ,    

     " 7  "   $<%$$% 2  "

+' "     " +  *   

   *  *   *  +  :  

*+=6*"!     

* & )  

  *  *+ ��� !"#$% &%&$ '�"�' -ri*unaloinotheoi"pugnedoorderodatedo :.%<.$%$ o&Anne'ureoP( ),oan+oofficer servingoinotheoAr"edo,orces,owhoohadoundergoneotheo"edicaloe'a"inationoat theoti"eoofohis>heroselectionoandowasonotofoundosufferingofro"oan+osuch diseaseoatothatoti"eoonotheo*asisoofowhich,ohe>sheohaso*eenodischargedofro" service,osuchoanoe"plo+eeoisoentitledoforotheo*enefitoofopresu"ptionoinohis>her favouroasoperoRuleo2oando?oofo/@ntitle"entoRulesoforoCausalit+oPensionar+ Awards,o ?#$6othatotheosaidodisa*ilit+ohaso*eenosufferedo*+otheoe"plo+ee duringohisoserviceocareeroandois,othus,oentitledoforotheo*enefitoofodisa*ilit+ pension.oo-heorelevantoparagraphsoofotheosaido7udg"entoareoasounderA "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 "

31. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

¶32In 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 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.

¶33As per Rule 423(a) of General Rules for the purpose of determining a question whether the cause of a disability or death resulting from disease is or is not attributable to service, it is immaterial whether the cause giving rise to the disability or death occurred in an area declared to be a field service/active service area or under normal peace conditions." <. ,urther,owithoregardotootheogrievanceoofotheopetitionersoBuaothe roundingooffodisa*ilit+opension,otheoissueohaso*eenosettledo*+otheo=on6*le Supre"eoCourtoofo!ndiaoino(���)����*��,�������-���,oowhereinoitohaso*een heldothatoan+oofficeroservingowithotheoMilitar+,owhoohadoundergoneothe "edical o e'a"ination o at o the o ti"e o of o enroll"ent o and o was o found o fit, o is su*seBuentl+ofoundotoo*eosufferingowithoaodisa*ilit+oisoentitledotootheo*enefitoof disa*ilit+opensionoasotheopresu"ptionowouldo*eoinofavouroofosuchoanoe"plo+ee thatotheodisa*ilit+osufferedoduringotheoserviceoisoattri*uta*leotootheoMilitar+ serviceo*+oroundingooffotheosaidopercentageoofodisa*ilit+.o-heorelevant paragraphoofotheosaido7udg"entoisoasounderA( ��� !"#$% &%&$ '�$�' "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 Personnel who is invalidated out of service, and not to any other category of Armed Forces Personnel mentioned hereinabove.

¶5We have heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis.

¶6We 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.

¶7The 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." #. 3earnedocounseloforotheopetitionersohasoalsooarguedothatoasothe respondentoofficialowasoworCingoinoaopeacefulostation,otheo*enefitoofodisa*ilit+ pensionothatotheoHypertensionoorotheootherodisa*ilit+o*eingosufferedo*+ohi", shouldonotohaveo*eenotreatedoattri*uta*leotootheo"ilitar+oserviceooro*eing aggravatedo*+otheo"ilitar+oservice,oespeciall+owhen,otheoMedicalo.oardohas ��� !"#$% &%&$ '�.�' consideredoallotheosa"eoandoevenotheoappealoagainstotheosa"eohadoalread+o*een dis"issedo*+otheoauthoritiesoconcernedoholdingothatotheodisa*ilit+oiso*eing sufferedo*+otheorespondentoareonotoattri*uta*leotootheo"ilitar+oserviceoor aggravatedo*+otheo"ilitar+oservice. ?. Duaotheosaidoargu"ent,oito"a+o*eonoticedothatotheostressoisothe reasonowithoregardotootheodisa*ilit+oof ohypertension *eingo sufferedo*+ respondentoNo. .o-heostressore"ainsowhileoperfor"ingotheodutiesoofo"atureoof "ilitar+ooroforce.o,urther,owhether,opostingoofopersonneloconcruelloatoa peacefulostationocano*eotaCenoasoaogroundotooden+otheo*enefitotooanoofficerothat theodiseaseofro"owhichoheohasosufferedoisoattri*uta*leotootheo"ilitar+oserviceoor aggravatedo*+otheo"ilitar+oservice,otheoRegulationo8$0&a)ooforegulationsoofothe MedicaloServicesoinotheoAr"edo,orces,o$% %,oisotoo*eotaCenointooaccount, whichoisoasounderA "+&"���. For the purpose of determining whether the cause of a disability or death resulting from disease is or not attributable to Service. It is immaterial whether the cause giving rise to the disability or death occurred in an area declared to be a Field Area/Active Service area or under normal peace conditions. It is however, essential to establish whether the disability or death bore a causal connection with the service conditions. All evidences both direct and circumstantial will be taken into account and benefit of reasonable doubt, if any, will be given to the individual. The evidence to be accepted as reasonable doubt for the purpose of these instructions should be of a degree of cogency, which though not reaching certainty, nevertheless carries a high degree of probability. In this connection, it will be remembered that proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond a shadow of doubt. If the evidence is so strong ��� !"#$% &%&$ '�#�' againstoanoindividualoasotooleaveoonlyoaoremoteopossibilityoin his/herofavor,owhichocanobeodismissedowithotheosentenceo"of courseoitoisopossibleobutonotoinotheoleastoprobable"otheocaseois provedobeyondoreasonableodoubt.oIfoonotheootherohand,othe evidenceobeosooevenlyobalancedoasotoorenderoimpracticableo? determinateoconclusionooneowayoorotheoother,othenotheocaseowould beooneoinowhichotheobenefitoofotheodoubtocouldobeogivenomore liberally o to o the o individual, o in o case o occurring o in o Field Service/ActiveoServiceoareas."o

¶10Aobareoperusaloofotheoaboveowouldoshowothatotheoservingoatoa normalopeaceoconditionooroactiveoareaooroaofieldoareaohasonooco-relationowhile adjudicatingouponotheoissueowhether,otheodiseaseoisobeingosufferedowas attributableotootheomilitaryoserviceooronot.oLearnedocounseloforotheopetitioners hasonotobeenoableotoodisputeotheosame.

¶11Withoregardotootheorelianceobeingoplacedobyotheolearnedocounselofor theopetitioneroonotheojudgmentoino/��������0����*�o,�������-���otoocontendothat inocaseoaopersonoisofoundotoobeofitoatotimeoandoisoatolaterostageoinoserviceofoundoto beosufferingofromoaodisability,otheopresumptionothatosuchoaodisabilityoisoattributed toomilitaryoserviceocannotobeoappliedomechanically,oquaotheosaidoaspect,oitoshallobe notedothatotoorebutosuchoaopresumption,owhichoisoinofavouroofoaodisabled employee,osufficientomaterialohasotoobeobroughtoonorecordotooshowothatoneitherothe serviceoconditionsonorotheodutiesoassignedotootheoemployeeoconcernedowereoof suchoaonatureowhichocouldoestablishothatodisabilityoisonotoattributableotoothe militaryoservice,osuchoonusohasonotobeenodischargedobyotheoemployeroinothe presentocaseotooshowothatotheorespondentoNo.1-employee'socaseoisocoveredoby /��������0����*�ocaseo(supra).o

¶12Further,otheosimilaropetitionsoonotheosameogroundsooneobeing CWP-20287-2025ohasoalreadyobeenodismissedobyotheoCoordinateoBenchoofothis VARINDERgPRASHAD 2025.08.27g19:51 Igattestgtogthegaccuracygofgthis ��� !"#$% &%&$ '�1�' Courtoono28.07.2025,owhichofactohasoalsoonotobeenorebutted.

¶13Learnedocounseloforotheopetitionersohasonotobeenoableotoodispute theosaidopropositionoofolawohavingobeenosettledobyotheoHon'bleoSupremeoCourt ofoIndiaoino(���)����*��,�������-���.

¶14Keepingoinoviewotheofactsoandocircumstancesoofotheopresentocase asowelloasotheosettledoprincipleoofolawoin����������������*��,�������-���oand (���)����*��,�������-���o once,oatotheotimeoofoselection,orespondentowas medicallyoexaminedoandowasofoundofitoinoalloaspectsoandoitowasoonlyoduringothe continuationoofoserviceothatorespondentowasofoundosufferingofrom oPrimary Hypertension.o oThatobeingoso,otheosaidodiseaseohasotoobeoattributedotoothe militaryoserviceoandotheoreportoofomedicaloboardocannototakeoawayotheorightoof respondentotooclaimotheobenefitoofodisabilityopensiono@50%obyoroundingoitooff.

¶15Noootheroargumentohasobeenoraised.

¶16Hence,oinotheoabsenceoofoanyoperversityobeingopointedooutoinothe impugnedoorderodatedo18.11.2022o(AnnexureoP-1)oeitheroonotheobasisoofothe factsoorotheosettledoprincipleoofolaw,onoogroundoisomadeooutoforoanyointerference byothisoCourtoinotheofactsoandocircumstancesoofotheopresentocase.

¶17Accordingly,otheowritopetitionoisodismissed.

¶18Pendingoapplication(s),oifoany,ostandsodisposedoof. o(HARSIMRANoSINGHoSETHI) JUDGE (VIKASoSURI) Augusto21,o2025 JUDGE Varinder Whetherospeaking/reasoned : Yes Whetheroreportable : No VARINDERgPRASHAD 2025.08.27g19:51 Igattestgtogthegaccuracygofgthis ��� !"#$% &%&$ '�2�'