Fit On Entry, Retired Colonel’s 50% Disability Pension Stands After 36 Years’ Service: P&H HC Rejects Centre’s Challenge

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in treating the respondent’s disability as attributable to military service, despite the Medical Board’s contrary opinion, where he had been medically fit on entry and no cogent evidence rebutted the presumption in his favour.

The court held

The Court held that the respondent was entitled to disability-pension benefits on the facts and applicable precedents, including rounding off of the disability element to 50% for life from 16.09.2010.

It also directed

Finding no ground to interfere with the Tribunal’s order dated 03.07.2023, it dismissed the writ petition and disposed of any pending applications.

01Facts

Respondent No. 1 joined the Armed Forces on 14.12.1974, having been found medically fit, and retired on 15.09.2010 after approximately 36 years of service.

He was later found to have coronary artery disease and a myocardial infarction; the Medical Board opined that the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service.

p. 2

The Armed Forces Tribunal, by order dated 03.07.2023, granted him disability-pension benefits, including rounding up the disability element to 50% instead of 20% for life from 16.09.2010.

pp. 1–2

The Union of India challenged that order, contending that the Medical Board’s opinion precluded the award.

p. 1

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in treating the respondent’s disability as attributable to military service, despite the Medical Board’s contrary opinion, where he had been medically fit on entry and no cogent evidence rebutted the presumption in his favour.

pp. 2–4, 5–6

ii.2. Whether a service member who retires on completion of service, rather than being invalided out, is eligible for rounding off of the disability element of disability pension.

pp. 4–5

03Law Applied

Under Rules 5 and 9 of the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982, where a member was medically fit on entry and no relevant disease was recorded, a presumption may arise that a later disability was contracted during service; the employer must produce evidence to rebut it.

pp. 2–4

Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India, (2013) 7 SCC 316, applied that presumption and rejected an unsupported Medical Board opinion where the service record contained no relevant entry.

pp. 2–4

Under Union of India v. Ram Avtar, Civil Appeal No. 418 of 2012, decided 10.12.2014, rounding off is available to an Armed Forces member whose disability is attributable to or aggravated by service, including one who retires on superannuation or completion of tenure.

pp. 4–5

The Court also relied on Union of India v. Reet MP Singh, Civil Appeal No. 11311 of 2025, decided 01.09.2025, affirming the rounding-off principle, and Union of India v. Col. N.C. Isaac (Retd.), SLP (C) No. 3680 of 2025, decided 15.09.2026, on the continuing operation of the beneficial presumptions and benefit of doubt under the 2008 Entitlement Rules, read with Rule 423 of the RMSAF, 2010.

pp. 5–6

04Reasoning

The Court found that the respondent was medically fit when he entered service and that the disability was detected only after nearly 36 years of service.

pp. 2, 5–6

The petitioners produced no cogent evidence or detailed medical material to rebut the resulting presumption of attributability; the Medical Board’s opinion alone therefore did not defeat the respondent’s entitlement.

pp. 2, 5–6

Since the disability was treated as attributable to service, the rule in Ram Avtar applied notwithstanding that the respondent retired after completing his service rather than being invalided out.

pp. 4–5

The Court found no perversity in the Tribunal’s order warranting interference.

pp. 4–7