Dismissed¶29

Union of India v. Ex Nk Hoshiar Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Dec 2025CWP/37821/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disability pension; rounding off of disability element; 30% rounded to 50%; Armed Forces Tribunal Regional Bench Chandigarh; Primary Hypertension V 67 ICD10J10.0Z04; disability attributable to military service; Medical Board assessment; MoD letter No.17 (01) 2017 (02)/D (Pension/policy) dated 05.09.2017; Union of India v. Ram Avtar 2014 SCC OnLine SC 1761; Union of India v. Reet M.P. Singh Civil Appeal No.11311 of 2025 decided 01.09.2025; Bijender Singh 2025 SCC OnLine SC 895; perversity; writ petition dismissed; CWP-37821-2025; Punjab and Haryana High Court; December 24, 2025; Harsimran Singh Sethi; Vikas Suri.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioners; the writ petition stands dismissed and the Tribunal's grant of rounding off of the disability element of disability pension to respondent No.1 remains undisturbed. ¶29

Union of India Vs Ex Nk Hoshiar Singh — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioners; the writ petition stands dismissed and the Tribunal's grant of rounding off of the disability element of disability pension to respondent No.1 remains undisturbed.

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the order of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh granting respondent No.1 the benefit of rounding off of the disability element of disability pension from 30% to 50% is perverse and warrants interference by this Court.

¶12

Court's answer

Since the disability element is to be rounded off per the settled law, in the present case the disability of 30% is to be rounded off to 50%.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The benefit of rounding off of the disability element of disability pension from 30% to 50% granted to respondent No.1 by the Tribunal accords with the settled principle of law in Ram Avtar and Reet M.P. Singh and cannot be treated as perverse.

¶28

Key takeaways

In the absence of any perversity in the impugned order dated 25.07.2024 either on the basis of facts or the settled principle of law, no ground is made out for interference by this Court and the writ petition is dismissed.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Harsimran Singh Sethi J. and Vikas Suri J.) dismisses the Union of India's writ petition challenging the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh order dated 25.07.2024, whereby Ex. NK Hoshiar Singh was granted rounding off of the disability element of disability pension from 30% to 50% (w.e.f. 01.04.2003 to 31.12.2015 and thereafter w.e.f. 01.01.2016, per Ministry of Defence letter No.17 (01) 2017 (02)/D (Pension/policy) dated 05.09.2017). The disability ('Primary Hypertension') was concededly compositely assessed at 30%, attributable to military service, with the entrant medically fit at joining in 1986. Relying on Union of India v. Ram Avtar, 2014 SCC OnLine SC 1761 (entitlement to rounding off irrespective of whether the personnel was invalidated out of service, retired on superannuation or completed his engagement tenure, where the disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service) and Union of India v. Reet M.P. Singh, Civil Appeal No.11311 of 2025 (decided 01.09.2025), the Court held the Tribunal's grant was correct, not perverse, and declined to interfere.

¶1

CWP-37821-2025 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

(112) CWP-37821-2025 Date of Decision : December 24, 2025

¶4

Union of India and others

¶5

.. Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

Ex. NK Hoshiar Singh and another

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI

¶10

Present: Ms. Krishna Dayama, Senior Panel Counsel, for the petitioners. (joined through VC).

¶11

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)

¶12

In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 25.07.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2-the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) by which, respondent No.1 has been allowed the benefit of rounding off of the disability element of disability pension from 30% to 50% w.e.f. 01.04.2003 to 31.12.2015 and thereafter w.e.f. 01.01.2016 as per Policy of Government of India, Ministry of Defence, letter No.17 (01) 2017 (02)/D (Pension/policy) dated 05.09.2017 on the ground that the same is perverse.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the disability i.e. ‘Primary Hypertension V 67 ICD10J10.0Z04’ has been compositely assessed @ 30% and attributable to military service yet the benefit of rounding off of disability pension has been granted to respondent No.1, which is incorrect.

¶14

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the case file with her able assistance.

¶15

CWP-37821-2025 2

¶16

It is conceded fact that at the time when respondent No.1 released from service on 31.03.2003, he had already rendered more than 17 years 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 on 27.03.1986, he was medically examined and was found not to be suffering from any such disease on the basis of which he has been allowed the benefit of disability pension and the said fact has been made the basis by the Tribunal while granting benefit to the respondent No.1 by placing reliance upon Union of India and others vs. Ram Avtar, 2014 SCC Online SC 1761 . It is a conceded fact that the said disability has been assessed by the Medical Board to be attributable to military service, hence, the only grievance of the petitioners is qua grant of benefit of rounding off of the disability pension to respondent No.1.

¶17

With regard to the grievance of petitioners qua the benefit of ‘rounding off of disability pension granted to respondent No.1, the same issue has been settled by the 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:-

¶18

“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

¶19

CWP-37821-2025 3

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

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.

¶23

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.”

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to dispute the said proposition of law having been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ram Avtar’s case (supra) to the extent that the disability element is to be rounded off and in the present case, the disability of 30% is to be rounded off to 50%.

¶25

Further, in a recent judgment in Civil Appeal No.11311 of 2025 titled as Union of India and others vs. Reet MP Singh and another, decided on 01.09.2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by placing reliance upon Union of India and others vs. Ram Avtar, 2014 SCC Online SC 1761 as well as Bijender Singh vs. Union of India and others, 2025 SCC Online SC 895 ,

¶26

CWP-37821-2025 4

¶27

has again reiterated that the benefit of rounding off the disability element cannot be denied.

¶28

Keeping in view the facts and circumstance of the present case as well as the settled principle of law settled in Ram Avtar’s case (supra) as well as Reet M.P. Singh’s case (supra) , the benefit of rounding off of the disability element of disability pension from 30% to 50% granted to respondent No.1 as per the said settled principle of law is correct and the same cannot be treated as perverse.

¶29

Hence, in the absence of any perversity being pointed out in the impugned order dated 25.07.2024 (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.

¶30

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

¶31

(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE

¶32

December 24, 2025 (VIKAS SURI) harsha JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No

Union of India v. Ex Nk Hoshiar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Ex Nk Hoshiar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhishek Gautam Vs Vandana

Harminder Singh Vs Financial Commissioner Punjab & Ors.

Kishore Chand and Ors. Vs Superintending Canal Officer and Ors.

Union Territory of Chandigarh Vs Central Admn. Trib. Chd Bench Chd and Anr. ( Jitenders Singh Case)

Union of India through Its Secretary to Government of India Vs Smt Suman Wife of No 14825438 Y

Niteesh Panwar Vs Comptroller and Auditor General of India