Disposed

Union of India and Ors. v. Pritam Chand

J&K HC18 Nov 2025WP(C)/1511/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by Union of India challenging an Armed Forces Tribunal order granting an ex-serviceman rounded-off disability pension at 50% for life for coronary artery disease assessed NANA. The Court upheld the Tribunal's order, applying Dharamvir Singh and Ram Avtar, but restricted arrears to three years before filing of the original application and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; Tribunal's grant of rounded-off disability pension affirmed, arrears limited to three years preceding filing of OA No. 610/2019.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Pritam Chand — Pension and Retirement Benefits | J&K HC (2025)

¶1

Sr. No. 12 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU

¶2

WP(C) No. 1511/2025

¶3

Union of India & ors.

¶4

…. Petitioner/Appellant(s)

¶5

Through:Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI with Mr. Eishaan Dadhichi, CGSC

V/s

Pritam Chand

…..Respondent(s)

Through:Mr. S. K. Saini, Mr. B. S. Sarmal and Mr. Amit Singh, Advocates

¶10

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE

¶11

ORDER

¶12

18.11.2025

¶13

01. Impugned in the present petition, filed by the Union of India under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is an order dated 07.09.2022 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Srinagar Bench at Jammu [hereinafter to be referred to as “the AFT”] in OA No. 610/2019 titled Ex. L/Nk Pritam Chand vs. Union of India and others.

¶14

02. The respondent was enrolled in the Indian Army on 09.08.1977 and discharged on 31.08.2001 for which he was granted service pension for life. Thereafter he was re-enrolled in DSC on 27.06.2022 and again discharged from DSC on 31.03.2015 after rendering 12 years and 274 days of service. The respondent was placed in Low Medical Category and prior to discharge, the respondent was brought before a duly constituted Release Medical Board (RMB) which assessed his disability TRIPPLE VESSEL CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE (POST CABG) which was neither attributable to nor

¶15

¶16

aggravated by Military Service (NANA) with 30% disablement with NIL percentage of disability, qualifying for disability pension. The claim of the respondent for disability pension was rejected as his disabilities were assessed as NANA.

¶17

03. Feeling aggrieved of the rejection of his claim for disability pension, the respondent filed an original application before the AFT seeking a direction for grant of disability pension with effect from 01.04.2015 along with arrears and interest rounding off benefits.

¶18

04. The claim of the respondent for grant of disability pension resisted by the petitioners on the ground that the respondent has been discharged on attaining the age of superannuation and the disability suffered by him neither attributed nor aggravated by the military service.

¶19

05. The Tribunal, after considering the rival contentions held that the respondent was not suffering from any ailment at the time of entering the service and disability was incurred to him in military service, as such, held him entitled to disability pension.

¶20

06. The respondent was held entitled to disability pension from the day next to the date of his discharge i.e., 01.04.2015 @ 50% against 30% for life after having been rounded off as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Union of India vs. Ram Avtar , 2014 SCC OnLine SC 1761 .

¶21

07. The admitted position on facts is that the respondent was found medically fit at the time of his initial enrolment as well as at the time of his re-enrolment in Defence Service Corps. There is no note of

¶22

¶23

any disease or disability was recorded at the time of his acceptance into DSC Service. Consequently, the disease which manifested during the period of military service must be deemed to have arisen during service. 08. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in D haramvir Singh’s case (supra) after taking note of the provisions of 1961 Regulations and 1982 Entitlement Rules, in paragraph No.29 held as under:-

¶24

“29.A conjoint reading of various provisions, reproduced above, makes it clear that:

¶25

(i) Disability pension to be granted to an individual who is invalidated from service on account of a disability which is attributable to or aggravated by military service in non-battle casualty and is assessed at 20% or over. The question whether a disability is attributable or aggravated by military service to be determined under “Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982" of Appendix-II (Regulation 173).

¶26

(ii) A member is to be presumed in sound physical and mental condition upon entering service if there is no note or record at the time of entrance. In the event of his subsequently being discharged from service on medical grounds any deterioration in his health is to be presumed due to service. [Rule 5 r/w Rule 14(b)].

¶27

(iii) Onus of proof is not on the claimant (employee), the corollary is that onus of proof that the condition for non-entitlement is with the employer. A claimant has a right to derive benefit of any reasonable doubt and is entitled for pensionary benefit more liberally. (Rule 9).

¶28

(iv) If a disease is accepted to have been as having arisen in service, it must also be established that the conditions of military service determined or contributed to the onset of the disease and that the conditions were due to the circumstances of duty in military service. [Rule 14(c)].

¶29

(v) If no note of any disability or disease was made at the time of individual's acceptance for military service, a disease which has led to an individual's discharge or death will be deemed to have arisen in service. [14(b)].

¶30

(vi) If medical opinion holds that the disease could not have been detected on medical examination prior to the acceptance for service and that disease will not be deemed to have arisen during service, the Medical Board is required to state the reasons. [14(b)]; and

¶31

(vii) It is mandatory for the Medical Board to follow the guidelines laid down in Chapter-II of the "Guide to Medical (Military Pension), 2002 – "Entitledment : General Principles", including paragraph 7,8 and 9 as referred to above.

¶32

¶33

09. Further, once the disability is held to be attributable to or aggravated by military service and assessed at 20% or more, the respondent becomes entitled to rounding off of disability pension in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Avtar , case (supra).

¶34

10. In light of the settled legal position laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments , this Court finds that the impugned order dated 07.09.2022 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal granting disability pension to the respondent with rounding off benefits does not suffer from any illegality or perversity.

¶35

11. However, it is not in dispute that the respondent was discharged from DSC service on 31.03.2015 and approached the AFT by filing OA No. 610/2019 in the year 2019. Therefore, applying the settled principle of limitation, the respondent shall be entitled to arrears of disability pension only for a period of three years preceding the date of filing of the Original Application .

¶36

12. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of in the above

¶37

terms.

¶38

(SHAHZAD AZEEM) (SINDHU SHARMA) Judge Judge

¶39

JAMMU RAM MURTI/PS 18.11.2025

¶40

Ram Murti 2025.12.29 22:21 I am the author of this document

Union of India and Ors. v. Pritam Chand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India and Ors. v. Pritam Chand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Th.P/S.Ramban Vs Bashir Ahmed

Ut of J and K Th Secy to Govt PWD Department J and K Government Civil Secretariat Jammu Srinagar Vs Parvez Ahmed

Poonam Devi Vs Ut of J and K through Commissioner Secretary to Govt Education Deptt and Others

Union of India and Ors. Vs Vicky Chalotra

Anjali Sharma Vs High Court of J and K Ladakh through Its Registrar General and Others

Vijay Kumar Vs Union of India Th. Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and Others