Union of India and Others v. No 15118869 M Hav Puran Chand and Another

dated 19.1 Tribunal, 'Tribunal for life w.

¶2report of responden Military S benefit of from 30% Tribunal, No.1047 In the present petition, the c

11.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed Chandigarh Bench, Chandim '), by which, respondent No.1 pension by rounding off the di .e.f. 01.09.2017, on the ground th Learned counsel for the pe medical examination of respon of "Primary Hypertension" as a nt No.1, but the same has been Service nor aggravated by the M f disability pension to responden % to 50% for life by placing r Principal Bench, New Delhi in of 2023 titled as Ex. MWO(HF challenge is to the impugned or by respondent No. 2-Armed For mandir (hereinafter referred to has been allowed the benefit sability element from 30% to 5 hat the same is perverse. etitioners places reliance upon ndent No.1 to hold that though assessed @ 30% has been found n held to be 'neither attributable Military service'. Hence, the gran nt No.1 by rounding of the disabi reliance upon the judgment of n OA No. 1356 of 2022, with M FO) Gulab Jha vs. Union of In rder rces as t of 0% d in e to t of ility MA and othe Dharamv incorrect.

¶3the repor responden the milita No.1 by r the facts o by the T (Annexur

¶4gone throu

¶5from serv service w the time w he was m disease, o service. T of disabil Dharamv said judgm ers, and the judgment of Hon vir Singh versus Union of India Learned counsel for the pet rt of the Medical Board clea nt No.1 is neither attributed to ary service, the grant of benefit rounding of the disability from 3 of the present case have not been Tribunal while passing the im re P-1). We have heard learned cou ugh the case file with his able as It is conceded fact that at the vice on 31.08.2017, he had alrea with the petitioners-Union of Indi when respondent No.1 joined th medically examined and was no on the basis of which, responden The claim of respondent No.1 is lity pension as per the judgmen vir Singh's case (supra). The rele ment are as under:-

¶30In the present c any disease has been n'ble Supreme Court of India a and others, (2013) 7 SCC 316 titioners further submits that on arly states that the disability military service nor aggravated of disability pension to respond 30% to 50% for life is incorrect a n appreciated in correct perspect mpugned order dated 19.11.20 unsel for the petitioners and h ssistance. time when respondent No.1 reti ady rendered more than 24 years ia. It is also a conceded fact tha he armed forces i.e. on 28.08.19 ot found suffering from any su nt No. 1 has been discharged fr covered in his favour for the gr nt of Hon'ble Supreme of India evant para Nos.30, 32 and 33 of ase it is undisputed that no note recorded at the time of appella a in 6, is nce, of d by dent and tive ave ired s of at at 993, uch rom rant a in e of ant's acceptance for militar failed to bring on recor appellant was under t hereditary he is suffer of any note in the serv of joining of appellant Medical Board to call before coming to an have been detected on acceptance for militar record to suggest that the Medical Board or been recorded in writi the disability is not du application of mind o Clause (d) of paragrap Board, which is as foll "(d) In the case of a d state what exactly in YES Disability is not r

¶32In spite of the Sanctioning Authority Board had not given a particularly when the disability available in at the time of accepta going through the afor Authority mechanical rejection based on the per Rules 5 and 9 o Pensionary Awards, 1 presumption and bene absence of any evide ry service. The respondents h rd any document to suggest that treatment for such a disease or ring from such disease. In abse ice record at the time of accepta it was incumbent on the part of for records and look into the sa opinion that the disease could n medical examination prior to ry service, but nothing is on any such record was called for looked into it and no reasons h ing to come to the conclusion t ue to military service. In fact, n of Medical Board is apparent fr ph 2 of the opinion of the Medi lows: disability under C the board sho their opinion is the cause there related to mil service" aforesaid provisions, the Pens y failed to notice that the Medi any reason in support of its opini ere is no note of such disease the service record of the appell ance for military service. With resaid facts the Pension Sanction lly passed the impugned order e report of the Medical Board. of 'Entitlement Rules for Casua 1982', the appellant is entitled fit of presumption in his favour ence on record to show that ave by nce nce f the ame not r by ave that non-rom ical ould eof. sion ical ion, e or lant hout ning r of As alty for

¶6Supreme SCC Onl undergone found fit, of disabil that the d paras of th appellant was suffe (Epilepsy)" at the tim will be presumed that t and mental condition and deterioration in h service.

¶33As per Rule 4 purpose of determining disability or death re attributable to service, giving rise to the disa declared to be a field s normal peace condition "Classification prescribed at Ch paragraph 4 po mental changes have been show by training, ma Therefore, the p disability of t connection with Further, as per the settled p Court of India in Union of Indi line SC 1761, any officer servi e the medical examination at th subsequently upon suffering a ity pension by rounding off the disability suffered is attributable he judgment in Ram Avtar's cas ring from "Genrealised seiz me of acceptance of his service the appellant was in sound physi at the time of entering the serv his health has taken place due 423(a) of General Rules for g a question whether the cause o esulting from disease is or is , it is immaterial whether the ca ability or death occurred in an a service/active service area or un ns. of diseases" have been hapter IV of Annexure I; under st traumatic epilepsy and other s resulting from head injuries wn as one of the diseases affected arching, prolonged standing etc. presumption would be that the the appellant bore a casual h the service conditions." principle of law settled by Hon' ia and others vs. Ram Avtar, 20 ing in the Armed Forces, who h e time of his/her selection and w disability, is entitled to the ben same as the presumption would e to the Military service. Relev se (supra) are as under:- zure e, it ical vice e to of a not ause area nder n r r s d . e l 'ble had was nefit d be

¶7the said p Court of 30% to be "4. By the present raise the question, wh has retired on attainin on completion of his to be suffering from attributable to or aggra entitled to be granted disability pension. T contend that, on 1(2)/97/D(Pen-C) issu Government of India, benefit is made avail Personnel who is inval any other category mentioned hereinabov

¶5We have heard to the lis.

¶6We do not se judgment(s) and order which pertain to the disability pension are costs.

¶7The dismissal o note of by the High Co in granting appropriate them, if any, who are disability pension." Learned counsel for the petit proposition of law having been India in Ram Avtar'scase (supr to be rounded off and when app e rounded off to 50%. set of appeals the appellant(s) ether or not, an individual, who ng the age of superannuation or tenure of engagement, if found m some disability which is avated by the military service, is d the benefit of rounding-off of The appellant(s) herein would the basis of Circular No. ued by the Ministry of Defence, dated 31.01.2001, the aforesaid able only to an Armed Forces lidated out of service, and not to of Armed Forces Personnel e. learned counsel for the parties e any error in the impugned r(s) and therefore all the appeals concept of rounding-off of the dismissed, with no order as to of these matters will be taken ourts as well as by the Tribunals e relief to the pensioners before e getting or are entitled to the tioners has not been able to disp n settled by the Hon'ble Supre ra) to the effect that percentage plied in the present case disability ) o r d s s f d . , d s o l s d s e o n s e e pute eme e of

¶8as well a once at th was found No.1 was the said d report of claim the Ram Avta

9.

¶10impugned facts or interferen

11.

¶12Keeping in view the facts an s the settled principle of law se he time of selection, respondent N d fit in all respects and it was o s found suffering from the Prim disabilities have to be attribute Medical Board cannot take aw e benefit of disability pension from 30% to 50 % as per the ar'scase (supra). No other argument has been Hence, in the absence of any d order dated 19.11.2024 (Annex the settled principle of law, nce by this Court in the facts and Accordingly, the writ petitio

nd circumstance of the present c ettled in Ram Avtar'scase (sup No. 1 was medically examined a only during the service, respond mary Hypertension. That being ed to the military service and ay the right of respondent No.1 and that too, by rounding off settled principle of law settled raised. y perversity being pointed out in xure P-1) either on the basis of no ground is made out for a circumstances of the present cas on is dismissed. case ra), and dent so, 1 to d in any