Union Of India And Others vs Ic-42070A Maj Gen Anil Duvedi And Another

CWP-36082-2026
(O & M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-36082-2026
129 (O & M)
Date of Decision 03.11.2026
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

..Petitioners
Versus
MAJ GEN ANIL DUVEDI AND ANOTHER

...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MINDERJEET YADAV
Present Ms. Neha Jain, Senior Panel counsel for the petitioners-UOI.
Mr. Navdeep Singh, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Roopan Atwal, Advocate for the respondent No. 1.
*
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)
1. In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the impugned order
dated 19.07.2023 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.2-Armed Forces
Tribunal, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in OA No.1225
of 2022 titled as ‘Anil Duvedi versus Union of India and others’, by which,
respondent No.1 has been allowed the benefit of rounding off of the disability
element of disability pension @ 50% as against 40% from 01.07.2021 for life, on
the ground that the same is perverse.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon the report
of Medical Board of respondent No.1 to hold that though the disability of
“Primary Hypertension, Lacunar Stroke-RT Pontine Infract” has been found in
respondent No.1 to be attributable to and aggravated by military service
respectively and the same has been held by the Medical Board to be ‘neither
attributable to nor aggravated by the Military service’. Hence, the grant of
RIYA
2026.11.05 14:49
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36082-2026
(O & M) 2
benefit of disability pension @ 50% to respondent No.1 by the Tribunal vide
impugned order dated 19.07.2023 (Annexure P-3) by placing reliance upon the
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Dharamvir Singh versus Union
of India and others, (2013) 7 SCC 316, is incorrect.
3. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for the respondent No. 1
vehemently oppose the claim of the petitioners.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through
the case file with their able assistance.
5. It is a conceded fact that at the time when respondent No.1 was
released from service on 30.06.2021, he had already rendered 37 years of 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 i.e. on 09.06.1984 , he was medically
examined and was not found suffering from any such disease.
6. As per the principle settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
Dharamvir Singh’s case (supra), which has also been considered by the Tribunal
in the impugned order dated 19.07.2023 (Annexure P-3), any officer serving in
the Armed Forces, who had undergone the medical examination at the time of
his/her selection and was not found suffering from any such disease at that time
on the basis of which, he/she has been discharged from service, such an
employee is entitled for the benefit of presumption in his/her favour as per Rule
5 and 9 of ‘Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982’ that the
said disability has been contracted by the employee during his service career and
is, thus, entitled for the benefit of disability pension. The relevant para Nos. 30
and 32 of the judgment in Dharamvir Singh’s case (supra) are as under:-
“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
RIYA
2026.11.05 14:49
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36082-2026
(O & M) 3
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 Disability is not related to mil service” 32. In 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
RIYA
2026.11.05 14:49
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36082-2026
(O & M) 4
health has taken place due to service.”
7. With regard to the grievance of the petitioners qua grant of benefit of
rounding off of disability element, as per the settled principle of law settled by
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.418-2012, titled as ‘Union of
India and others vs. Ram Avtar’, decided on 10.12.2014, , 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:-
“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.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties to the
lis.
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.
RIYA
2026.11.05 14:49
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36082-2026
(O & M) 5
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.”
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in recent judgment passed in
Civil Appeal No.11311 of 2025 decided on 01.09.2025 titled as Union of India and
others vs. Reet MP Singh and another , the grant of benefit of rounding off the
disability as per Ram Avtar’s case (supra) has again been upheld, which fact has
gone un-rebutted at the hands of the petitioners.
9. 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 Dharamvir Singh’s case (supra), Ram Avtar’s case (supra) and Reet MP
Singh’s case (supra).
10. It has further been argued on behalf of the petitioners that the
Medical Test at the time of entry into service is not exhaustive and the mere fact
that the disease has manifested during military service does not per se establish
attributability/aggravation by military service in terms of Rule 5 of Entitlement
Rules, 2008.
11. Qua this argument, it may be noticed that the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in its judgment delivered in SLP (C) No.3680 of 2025, titled as
‘Union of India and others vs. Col. NC ISAAC (Retd.), decided on 15.09.2026,
has observed in para 30.7 as under:
‘ 30.7 Conclusion : The mere addition of a causal
requirement and a removal of the presumption that when a
member joins service healthy, and, if, he leaves with a
disability, it ought to be attributable to the military
service, does not, by itself, change the core scheme of the
Entitlement Rules 2008 because the other beneficial
RIYA
2026.11.05 14:49
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36082-2026
(O & M) 6
provisions broadly remain untouched. The onus to prove
that the member’s disability is not attributable to service
still lies on the employer. The relevant rules regarding
attributability and aggravation continue to hold that if
cause of disability is unknown, and presumption of
attributability is not rebutted, then the disability is
attributable to service. Rule 7 of the Entitlement Rules
2008 read with Rule 423 of the RMSAF, 2010 continue to
generate a reasonable benefit of doubt in favour of the
service member. ’
12. Keeping in view the settled principle of law settled in Dharamvir
Singh’s case (supra), Ram Avtar’s case (supra), Reet MP Singh’s case (supra)
and Col. NC ISAAC’s case (supra) as well as the facts and circumstances of the
present case that at the time of selection, the respondent No.1 was medically
examined and was found fit in all respects and it was only after respondent No.1
rendered service for almost 37 years with the petitioner-UOI, that he was found
to be suffering from aforesaid disability along with the fact that no cogent
evidence/material or detailed medical record has been brought on record to show
this Court that the disability is not attributable to military service, that being so,
the said disability has to be attributed to the military service and the report of
Medical Board cannot take away the right of respondent No.1 to claim the
benefit of disability pension.
13. No other argument has been raised.
14. Order is dictated in the open Court in the presence of the learned
counsel for the petitioners.
15. Hence, in the absence of any perversity being pointed out in the
impugned order dated 19.07.2023 (Annexure P-3) either on the basis of the facts
RIYA
2026.11.05 14:49
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36082-2026
(O & M) 7
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.
16. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
17. Pending civil miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
JUDGE

( MINDERJEET YADAV )
JUDGE
03.11.2026
Riya
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
RIYA
2026.11.05 14:49
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document