Union of India and Others v. Wg Cdr Deepak Bansal and Another

dated 03.0 Tribunal, to as 'Trib disability ground th

¶2report of disabilitie found in attributab said clai Applicatio restricted Hence, th In the present petition, the c

03.2025 (Annexure P-3) passed Regional Bench, Chandigarh at bunal'), by which, respondent N by rounding off the disability hat the same is perverse. Learned counsel for the pe medical examination of respon es of "Primary Hypertension a respondent No.1, but the sam le to Military Service nor aggra m for disability pension wa on was filed in which the claim to Primary Hypertension, whi he grant of benefit of disability challenge is to the impugned or by respondent No. 2-Armed For Chandimandir (hereinafter refer No.1 has been allowed the benefi from 30% to 50% for life on etitioners places reliance upon ndent No.1 to hold that though and ID-Dyslippidemia" have b me has been held to be 'neit avated by the Military service'. T as rejected. Further an Origi m for disability pension was o ch was found to be 30% for l y pension to respondent No.1 fr rder rces rred t of een ther The inal only life. 30% to 50 Principal Bhupinde

¶3the repor responden the milita No.1 by r the presen Tribunal P/3).

¶5gone throu

¶6premature 0% for life by placing reliance u Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No er Singh vs. Union of India and Learned counsel for the pet rt of the Medical Board clear nt No.1 is neither attributed to ary service, the grant of benefit ounding it off from 30% to 50% nt case have not been apprecia while passing the impugned o

We have heard learned cou ugh the case file with her able as It is conceded fact that at th ely retired from service on 31. upon the judgment of the Tribun 861 of 2022, titled as "Ex. MW d others", is incorrect. titioners further submits that on rly states that the disabilities military service nor aggravated of disability pension to respond % for life is incorrect and the facts ated in correct perspective by order dated 03.03.2025 (Annex unsel for the petitioners and h ssistance. he time when respondent No.1 w .12.2018, he had already rende nal, WO nce, of d by dent s of xure ave was more than conceded on 20.12. from any granted th covered in of Hon'b relevant p n 21 years of service with the pet fact that at the time when respo .1997, he was medically exam such disease, on the basis of w he benefit of disability pension n his favour for the grant of disa ble Supreme of India in Dhar para Nos.30, 32 and 33 of the sai

¶30In the present c any disease has been 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 titioners-Union of India. It is als ndent No.1 joined the armed for mined and was not found suffer which, respondent No. 1 has b . The claim of respondent No.1 ability pension as per the judgm ramvir Singh's case (supra). T d judgment are as under:- ase it is undisputed that no note recorded at the time of appella 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 acceptan 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" so a rces ring een 1 is ment The e of ant's ave by nce nce f the ame not r by ave that non-rom ical ould

¶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 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 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 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. sion ical ion, e or lant hout ning r of As alty for r. In zure e, it ical vice e to of a not ause area nder n r r s d .

¶7Supreme SCC Onl undergone found fit, of disabil that the d paras of th 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'scase "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 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 e (supra) are as under:- 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 e l 'ble had was nefit d be vant ) o r d s s f d . , d s o l s d s

¶8dispute th Supreme percentag case, disab

9.

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 pet he said proposition of law hav Court of India in Ram Avtar ge of disability is to be rounded o ability of 30% is to be rounded of 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 titioners/UOI has not been able ving been settled by the Hon' r's case (supra) to the effect t off and when applied in the pres ff to 50%. e o n s e e e to 'ble that

¶10as well as once at th was found No.1 was the said d Medical B benefit of per the se

11.

¶12impugned facts or interferen

13.

¶14Keeping 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 disability has to be attributed to th Board cannot take away the righ f disability pension and that too ttled principle of law settled in R No other argument has been Hence, in the absence of any d order dated 03.03.2025 (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's case (sup No. 1 was medically examined a only during the service, respond mary Hypertension. That being he military service and the repor ht of respondent No.1 to claim o, by rounding off the disability Ram Avtar's case (supra). raised. y perversity being pointed out in xure P-3) 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, rt of y as any