ORDER : Ravi Chirania, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners feeling aggrieved by the order dated 15.03.2022 passed by learned Armed Forced Tribunal, Regional Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘ learned AFT ’ for short), whereby the Original Application (hereinafter referred to as ‘OA’ for short) filed by the respondent-applicant (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent’ for short) was allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent was enrolled in the Army (AEC) as Clerk (GD/HD) on 08.06.1984 and was promoted to the post of Naib Subedar with effect from 02.01.2008. He further submitted that while performing official duties the respondent suffered a head injury in a road accident on 09.07.2003 and was hospitalized at the Military Hospital, Ambala Cantt. A Court of Inquiry was conducted with regard to the injuries suffered by the respondent, in which it was held that the injury was attributable to military service. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that respondent completed 26 years of service on 07.06.2010 and was granted further extension till 07.06.2012 and later on discharged from the service on 29.02.2012. 3. The respondent filed an OA No.153/2013 before the learned AFT, wherein the following prayer was made:- “(A) The application be allowed and the premature discharge of applicant be quashed and set aside he be promoted to the rank of Subedar wef 01 Nov 2011 when his immediate junior was promoted. (B). The disability element of applicant be rounded off to 50% from existing 30%. (C) The applicant be notionally re-instated in to service wef 01 Mar 2012 and be paid all pay and allowances as applicable. (D) The arrears of service pay and allowances as well as disability element be paid with 12% interest. (E) Any other relief, which Hon'ble Tribunal thinks just and proper in the matter may also be granted to the applicant.” 4. Learned counsel submitted that a perusal of the prayers made in the OA shows that the respondent challenged his premature discharge from service and prayed that he be promoted to the rank of Subedar with effect from the date on which persons junior to him were promoted. He further claimed for rounding off of disability element to 50% from the existing 30%. 5. He further claimed for rounding off of disability element to 50% from the existing 30%. 5. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned AFT passed the impugned order without considering the reply filed before the Tribunal as filed by the petitioners therein. It is further submitted that the respondent was not entitled to promotion for the post of Subedar and he was rightly granted pension along with the disability element at the rate of 30%. However, the learned Tribunal committed a serious error in passing the impugned order of rounding off upto 50%. 6. Accordingly, learned counsel for petitioners prayed that the impugned order dated 15.03.2022 passed by the learned AFT be quashed and set aside, and the writ petition be allowed. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent strongly opposed the above submissions and contended that the learned AFT rightly passed the order dated 15.03.2022, while placing reliance on the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ram Avtar , Civil Appeal No. 418 of 2012, decided on 10.12.2014, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that personnel who complete their tenure and suffered disability attributed to or aggravated by military service were held entitled for rounding off of the disability pension/element. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bijendra Singh v. Union Of India reported in [2025 SCC OnLine SC 895] . Learned counsel further relied upon the judgment passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ex Gnr Mahabir Singh Vs. Union of India decided by order dated 19.08.2025 and D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7614/2025 titled as Union of India and Ors. vs. Jc 728652F Ex Sub Ram Pal Singh . He also submitted that the learned AFT rightly relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court passed in Ram Avtar (supra) . On the basis of above submissions and judgments, learned counsel submitted that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered and is no longer res integra in view of the settled proposition of law in terms of above judgments. Therefore, the present petition is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 10. Therefore, the present petition is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 10. This Court has noted the fact that the respondent was discharged from service w.e.f. 29.02.2012 as he suffered a serious accident while performing official duties and was granted a disability element/pension at the rate of 30%, which he challenged by way of filing an OA before the learned AFT. 11. This Court also examined the order dated 15.03.2022 passed by learned AFT and noted that learned Tribunal framed three issues in the matter which are reproduced here as under:- “(a) First- Was the discharge from service of the Applicant in consonance with laid down provisions and procedure? (b) Second- Was the Applicant denied promotion to the Rank of Subedar? (c) Is the Applicant eligible for rounding off of Disability Element from 30% to 50% w.e.f. the date of discharge ?” 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners specifically confined its submission with regard to rounding off of the disability element from 30% to 50% from the date of discharge and therefore, this Court shall examin the findings as recorded by learned AFT in respect of the issue No.3 only. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent cited the judgment of that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in the case of D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16083/2023 titled as Ex Gnr Mahabir Singh Vs. Union of India , where a similar issue was examined and the writ petition was allowed, where a claim for enhancement of the disability element/ pension from 20% to 50% was accepted by the Court. The relevant para of the judgment passed in the case of Ex GNR Mahabir Singh (supra) , reads as under:- “3. The learned AFT taking into consideration the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Ex Cfn Narsingh Yadav Vs. Union of India in Civil Appeal No.7672/2019 (Diary No.27850 of 2017) has held that where the said person has been medically boarded out with disease of Schizophrenia proceeded to reject the claim of the petitioner. The learned AFT taking into consideration the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Ex Cfn Narsingh Yadav Vs. Union of India in Civil Appeal No.7672/2019 (Diary No.27850 of 2017) has held that where the said person has been medically boarded out with disease of Schizophrenia proceeded to reject the claim of the petitioner. The disease of Hysterical Reaction which has occurred after having put more than fifteen years of service with the Armed Forces cannot be said to be a disease which may be said to have remained latent and has arisen after fifteen years of service while Schizophrenia is a disease where which may continue to remain unobserved for years together. The case relating to disease of Hysterical Reaction cannot be said to have remained latent. The case therefore, cannot be said to be similar to that of Narsingh Yadav Vs. Union of India to Bijender Singh Vs. Union of India: AIR 2025 SC 2130 . The Supreme Court in Bijender Singh Vs. Union of India (supra) after considering the law as laid down from time to time in previous judgments including that of Dharamvir Singh Vs. Union of India: (2013) 7 SCC 316, Union of India Vs. Rajbir Singh: (2015) 12 SCC 264 and K.J.S. Buttar Vs. Union of India (2011) 11 SCC 429 as well as Rule 183 of the Pension Regulations for the Army Part I (1961), held as under: “45.1. Thus, this Court held that essence of the Rules is that a member of the armed forces is presumed to be in sound physical and mental condition at the time of his entry into the service if there is no note or record to the contrary made at the time of such entry. In the event of subsequent discharge from service on medical ground, any deterioration in health would be presumed to be due to military service. The burden would be on the employer to rebut the presumption that the disability suffered by the member was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. If the Medical Board is of the opinion that the disease suffered by the member could not have been detected at the time of entry into service, the Medical Board has to give reasons for saying so. If the Medical Board is of the opinion that the disease suffered by the member could not have been detected at the time of entry into service, the Medical Board has to give reasons for saying so. This Court highlighted that the provision for payment of disability pension is a beneficial one which ought to be interpreted liberally. A soldier cannot be asked to prove that the disease was contracted by him on account of military service or was aggravated by the same. The very fact that upon proper physical and other tests, the member was found fit to serve in the army would give rise to a presumption that he was disease free at the time of his entry into service. For the employer to say that such a disease was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, the least that is required to be done is to furnish reasons for taking such a view. 46. Referring back to the impugned order dated 26.02.2016, we find that the Tribunal simply went by the remarks of the Invaliding Medical Board and Re-Survey Medical Boards to hold that since the disability of the Appellant was less than 20%, he would not be entitled to the disability element of the disability pension. Tribunal did not examine the Issue as to whether the disability was attributable to or aggravated by military service. In the instant case neither has it been mentioned by the Invaliding Medical Board nor by the Re-Survey medical boards that the disease for which the Appellant was invalided out of service could not be detected at the time of entry into military service. As a matter of fact, the Invaliding Medical Board was quite categorical that no disability of the Appellant existed before entering service. As would be evident from the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the law has by now crystallized that if there is no note or report of the Medical Board at the time of entry into service that the member suffered from any particular disease, the presumption would be that the member got afflicted by the said disease because of military service. Therefore the burden of proving that the disease is not attributable to or aggravated by military service rest entirely on the employer. Therefore the burden of proving that the disease is not attributable to or aggravated by military service rest entirely on the employer. Further, any disease or disability for which a member of the armed forces is invalided out of service would have to be assumed to be above 20% and attract grant of 50% disability pension.” 4. It has also taken into consideration the instructions dated 31.01.2001 which provided that if the disability is less than 50%, it would be reckoned as 50%, between 50% to 75%, it would be reckoned as 75% and if disability is between 76% to 100%, it would be reckoned as 100%. 5. Thus, if a disease is found, if the respondents' claim that the disease is not such which is attributable to or aggravated during army service, then they have to show this fact while discharging the concerned individual in the medical report. 6. From the perusal of the Medical Board proceedings, there is no such mention of the disease existing prior to joining of service, for the sald purpose. Therefore, the disability which has arisen during the course of service would be treated to attributable and aggravated due to Army service and as the petitioner has been discharged based on the medical disability, he would be entitled to disability pension, the medical authority had assessed the disability @ 20%. 7. In view of above, we have no hesitation in allowing the present petition and set aside the order dated 15.03.2022 passed by the AFT. Further, it is directed to the respondents to release the actual benefits to the petitioner, treating the disability as 50% and release disability pension to the petitioner from the date of filing of application before the AFT and actual benefits and arrears shall be calculated accordingly. However, for the earlier period only notional calculation shall be done. The compliance shall be made positively within a period of three months. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.” 14. Learned counsel for the respondent also referred the judgments passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7614/2025 titled as Union of India and Ors. vs. Jc 728652F Ex Sub Ram Pal Singh decided on 10.11.2025, wherein disability pension had been granted and the same was challenged by the Union of India by filing the aforesaid writ petition. Learned counsel for the respondent also referred the judgments passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7614/2025 titled as Union of India and Ors. vs. Jc 728652F Ex Sub Ram Pal Singh decided on 10.11.2025, wherein disability pension had been granted and the same was challenged by the Union of India by filing the aforesaid writ petition. While deciding the case of Jc 728652F Ex Sub Ram Pal Singh (supra) , the Division Bench specifically observed that the issue was no longer res integra, in view of the judgment as passed in the case of Bijendra Singh (supra) 15. Now in the present case, while deciding issue No.3 in respect of rounding off the disability element from 30% to 50%, learned AFT relied upon the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Avtar (supra) . The relevant paras of the order is 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.” 16. The Hon’ble Apex Court by the order passed in the case of Ram Avtar (supra) and connected appeals , decided number of matters in which challenge was made to the respective orders passed by the various Division Benches of different High Courts, where an issue of enhancement of disability element/pension from 20% to 50% / 30% to 50% / 50% to 75% was under challenge. The Hon’ble Apex Court did not interfere in all the orders as passed by the various Division Benches of the various High Courts after considering the fact that the Government itself issued the notification dated 31.01.2001 providing for enhancement of disability pension to 50%, 75% and 100%. 17. This Court after perusing the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court as referred above, noted that the Government of India, Ministry of Defence had issued a Circular No.1(2)/97/D(Pen-C) dated 31.01.2001, for implementation of Government’s decision in regard to the recommendation as submitted by the Fifth Central Pay Commission regarding disability pension/ war injury person/special family pension/liberalized family pension/dependent pension for the armed forces officers and personnel below Officer rank retiring invaliding or dying in harness on or after 01.01.1996 18. In the said Circular under Clause 8, the Government provided for percentage of disability less than 100% but not less than 20%, the rate as maintained shall be payable. The Circular specifically provides that no disability pension shall be paid, in case disability is less than 20%. Clause 8.3 further provides the retiring/service pension or retiring/service gratuity as admissible as per Ministry of Defence letter dated 03.04.1998 shall be payable in addition to disability element from date of retirement/discharge. Clause 8 of the Circular being relevant for the present issue is reproduced as under:- “8.1 Where an Armed Forces Personnel is retained in service despite disability arising/sustained under the circumstances mentioned under category 'B' & 'C' in para 4.1 above and is subsequently retired/discharged on attaining age of retirement or on completion of tenure, he/she shall be entitled to disability element at the rates prescribed at para 7.1.11 (a) above for 100% disablement. 8.2 For disabilities less than 100% but not less than 20%, the above rate shall be proportionately reduced. No disability element shall be payable I disabilities less than 20%. Provisions contained in para 7.2. above shall r. be applicable for computing disability element, Disability actually assess by the duly approved Release Medical Board Invaliding Medical Board accepted by the Pension Sanctioning Authority, shall, reckon for computing disability element. 8.3 Retiring/Service Pension or Retiring/Service Gratuity as admissible? per Ministry of Defence letter No 1(6)/98/D(Pen/Services) dated 03 Feb shall be payable in addition to disability element from the date retirement/discharge. 8.3 Retiring/Service Pension or Retiring/Service Gratuity as admissible? per Ministry of Defence letter No 1(6)/98/D(Pen/Services) dated 03 Feb shall be payable in addition to disability element from the date retirement/discharge. Note:- An Armed Forces Personnel who retires voluntarily/or seek discharge on request shall not be eligible for any award on account of disability. Provided that Armed Forces Personnel who is due for retirement/discharge on completion of tenure, or on completion of service limits or on completion the terms of engagement or on attaining the prescribed age of retirement, a who seeks pre-mature retirement/discharge on request for the purpose getting higher commutation value of pension, shall remain eligible disability element.” 19. In the present case, despite the fact that the Circular dated 31.01.2001 was strictly applicable as the respondent who was invalided on account of the injury suffered by him while on official duty, which was also affirmed by the Court of Inquiry, therefore, in terms of Circular dated 31.01.2001, the respondent was entitled to disability element in terms of Clause 8 of said Circular. Accordingly, the respondent was entitled to the disability element at the rate of 50%, as rightly assessed and ordered by the learned AFT by its order dated 15.03.2022. 20. This Court also considered the fact that before learned AFT, the Circular dated 31.01.2001 was placed on record discussed above, however, there is no pleading in the entire reply as to why the said circular is not applicable to the case of the respondent herein. Even the present writ petition, as filed, is baseless and a complete stand has been taken which is contrary to the Circular dated 31.01.2001 which has already been considered by various Division Benches of different High Courts, wherein, the similarly situated persons were held entitled for the disability element in terms thereof, and all the orders passed by all the High Courts were also affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, as noted above in the case of Ram Avtar (supra), therefore, the issue stands well settled. 21. The present issue also came to be examined by a Division Bench of this High Court in the case of D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16083/2023 titled as Ex. Gnr Mahabir Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on 19.08.2025, where the petitioner in the said case had sought enhancement of disability pension from 20% to 50%, which had been denied by the respondents. Gnr Mahabir Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on 19.08.2025, where the petitioner in the said case had sought enhancement of disability pension from 20% to 50%, which had been denied by the respondents. The relevant paras of the order is reproduced here as under:- “3. The learned AFT taking into consideration the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Ex Cin Narsingh Yadav Vs. Union of India in Civil Appeal No.7672/2019 (Diary No.27850 of 2017) has held that where the said person has been medically boarded out with disease of Schizophrenia proceeded to reject the claim of the petitioner. The disease of Hysterical Reaction which has occurred after having put more than fifteen years of service with the Armed Forces cannot be said to be a disease which may be said to have remained latent and has arisen after fifteen years of service while Schizophrenia is a disease where which may continue to remain unobserved for years together. The case relating to disease of Hysterical Reaction cannot be said to have remained latent. The case therefore, cannot be said to be similar to that of Narsingh Yadav Vs. Union of India to Bijender Singh Vs. Union of India: AIR 2025 SC 2130 . The Supreme Court in Bijender Singh Vs. Union of India (supra) after considering the law as laid down from time to time in previous judgments including that of Dharamvir Singh Vs. Union of India: (2013) 7 SCC 316 , Union of India Vs. Rajbir Singh: (2015) 12 SCC 264 and K.J.S. Buttar Vs. Union of India (2011) 11 SCC 429 as well as Rule 183 of the Pension Regulations for the Army Part I (1961), held as under: "45.1. Thus, this Court held that essence of the Rules is that a member of the armed forces is presumed to be in sound physical and mental condition at the time of his entry into the service if there is no note or record to the contrary made at the time of such entry. In the event of subsequent discharge from service on medical ground, any deterioration in health would be presumed to be due to military service. The burden would be on the employer to rebut the presumption that the disability suffered by the member was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. In the event of subsequent discharge from service on medical ground, any deterioration in health would be presumed to be due to military service. The burden would be on the employer to rebut the presumption that the disability suffered by the member was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. If the Medical Board is of the opinion that the disease suffered by the member could not have been detected at the time of entry into service, the Medical Board has to give reasons for saying so. This Court highlighted that the provision for payment of disability pension is a beneficial one which ought to be interpreted liberally. A soldier cannot be asked to prove that the disease was contracted by him on account of military service or was aggravated by the same. The very fact that upon proper physical and other tests, the member was found fit to serve in the army would give rise to a presumption that he was disease free at the time of his entry into service. For the employer to say that such a disease was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, the least that is required to be done is to furnish reasons for taking such a view. 46. Referring back to the impugned order dated 26.02.2016, we find that the Tribunal simply went by the remarks of the Invaliding Medical Board and Re-Survey Medical Boards to hold that since the disability of the Appellant was less than 20%, he would not be entitled to the disability element of the disability pension. Tribunal did not examine the issue as to whether the disability was attributable to or aggravated by military service. In the instant case neither has it been mentioned by the Invaliding Medical Board nor by the Re- Survey Medical Boards that the disease for which the Appellant was invalided out of service could not be detected at the time of entry into military service. As a matter of fact, the Invaliding Medical Board was quite categorical that no disability of the Appellant existed before entering service. As a matter of fact, the Invaliding Medical Board was quite categorical that no disability of the Appellant existed before entering service. As would be evident from the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the law has by now crystallized that if there is no note or report of the Medical Board at the time of entry into service that the member suffered from any particular disease, the presumption would be that the member got afflicted by the sald disease because of military service. Therefore the burden of proving that the disease is not attributable to or aggravated by military service rest entirely on the employer. Further, any disease or disability for which a member of the armed forces is invalided out of service would have to be assumed to be above 20% and attract grant of 50% disability pension. 4. It has also taken into consideration the instructions dated 31.01.2001 which provided that if the disability is less than 50%, it would be reckoned as 50%, between 50% to 75%, it would be reckoned as 75% and if disability is between 76% to 100%, it would be reckoned as 100%. 5. Thus, if a disease is found, if the respondents' claim that the disease is not such which is attributable to or aggravated during army service, then they have to show this fact while discharging the concerned individual in the medical report.” 22. Further the same co-ordinate Bench again examined the issue of disability pension in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7614/2025 titled as Jc 728652F Ex Sub Ram Pal Singh (Supra) decided on 10.11.2025, wherein disability pension had been granted and the same was challenged by the Union of India by filing the aforesaid writ petition. While deciding the case of Jc 728652F Ex Sub Ram Pal Singh (supra) , the Division Bench specifically observed that the issue was no longer res integra, in view of the judgment as passed in the case of Bijendra Singh (supra) . Paras No.2 to 4 of the judgment are as under:- “2. The issue is no more res-integra in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bijender Singh v. Union of India and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 895, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:- “32.1. Paras No.2 to 4 of the judgment are as under:- “2. The issue is no more res-integra in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bijender Singh v. Union of India and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 895, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:- “32.1. Thus, what Rule 5 says is that the question of entitlement to casualty pensionary awards and evaluation of disabilities shall be based on the presumption that the concerned member was in sound physical and mental condition while entering service except as to physical disabilities noted or recorded at the time of entrance. It is also to be presumed that in the event of him being deterioration in his health which has taken place is due to service. 33. As per Rule 9, the onus of proof is on the authority and not on the claimant. Rule 9 specifically says that a member who is declared disabled from service shall not be required to prove his entitlement to pension and such benefit is to be given more liberally. Rule 9 is extracted hereunder: Onus of Proof 9. The claimant shall not be called upon to prove the conditions of entitlements. He/she will receive the benefit of any reasonable doubt. This benefit will be given more liberally to the claimants in field/afloat service cases. 34. Rule 14(b) is also relevant. It reads as follows: Diseases 14. In respect of diseases, the following rule will be observed: (a) *** *** *** *** (b) A disease which has led to an individual's discharge or death will ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in service, if no note of it was made at the time of the individual's acceptance for military service. However, if medical opinion holds, for reasons to be stated, that the disease could not have been 20 detected on medical examination prior to acceptance for service, the disease will not be deemed to have arisen during service. (c) *** *** *** *** 34.1. Rule 14(b) provides for a legal presumption that a disease which has led to an individual’s discharge or death will ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in service if no note of it was made at the time of the individual’s acceptance of military service. (c) *** *** *** *** 34.1. Rule 14(b) provides for a legal presumption that a disease which has led to an individual’s discharge or death will ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in service if no note of it was made at the time of the individual’s acceptance of military service. However, if the medical opinion says that the disease could not have been detected on medical examination before entering military service, then such a disease would not be deemed to have arisen during service provided reasons are recorded.” 3. It also approved the law laid down in Dharamvir Singh vs Union of India, (2013) 7 SCC 316 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- 29. A conjoint reading of various provisions, reproduced above, makes it clear that: 29.1. Disability pension to be granted to an individual who is invalided 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 to or aggravated by military service to be determined under the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 of Appendix II (Regulation 173). 29.2. 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 read with Rule 14(b)]. 29.3. The 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). 29.4. 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 30 contributed to the onset of the disease and that the conditions were due to the circumstances of duty in military service [Rule 14(c)]. 29.5. 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 [Rule 14(b)]. 29.6. 29.5. 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 [Rule 14(b)]. 29.6. 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 [Rule 14(b)]; and 29.7. It is mandatory for the Medical Board to follow the guidelines laid down in Chapter II of the Guide to Medical Officers (Military Pensions), 2002. 4. Further after considering the decision in Sukhvinder Singh vs. Union of India (2014) 14 SCC 364 , the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bijender Singh v. Union of India and others (supra), has held as under:- 44.2. As can be seen from the above, this Court emphasized that the morale of the armed forces requires absolute and undiluted protection. If any injury leads to loss of service without any recompense, this morale would be severely undermined. Further, this Court noticed that there appeared to be no provision authorising the discharge or invaliding out of service where the disability is below 20% which is quite logical. Therefore, it has been held that where a member of the armed forces is invalided out of service, it perforce has to be assumed that his disability was found to be above 20%. Most important is that this Court after considering the extant Rules and Regulations has held that a disability leading to invaliding out of service would attract grant of 50% disability pension.” 23. This Court noted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above cited judgment and the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jc 728652F Ex Sub Ram Pal Singh (supra) specifically recorded that the issue is no longer res integra and has been decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in clear terms. Therefore, the action of the petitioners of challenging rounding off of disability pension to 50%, to which the respondent herein is entitled, particularly in terms of the notification dated 31.01.2001, despite being aware of the fact that there is no legal issue is involved and they are duty bound to enhance the disability element from 30% to 50%, is highly unjustified. More so, as the issue relates to a disability suffered by a member of the Force while performing the official duties and it is not even the case of the petitioners that the respondent suffered the disability not on account of service. 24. This Court also noted that the present writ petition has been filed on the following grounds:- “A. Because, the impugned order dated 15.03.2022 is ex-facie illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable, therefore, the same are liable to be dismissed, quashed and set aside. B. Because the impugned order dated 15.03.2022 is passed without application of mind and without considering the material placed on record so also the submissions made by the petitioners. C. Because the impugned order dated 15.03.2022 has been passed in violation of MoD letter dated 05.09.2017 vide which the rounding off benefit is applicable to the respondent w.e.f. 01.01.2016 only and respondent has already been granted disability element w.e.f. 01.03.2012 and broad banding w.e.f. 01.01.2016. A true copy of MoD letter dated 05.09.2017 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure - 6.” 25. In the facts as pleaded in this writ petition and in the above grounds, the judgment of learned AFT has not been questioned on the ground that para 10 of the judgment of Ram Avtar (supra) is not applicable to the present case. 26. In view of above discussion, the present writ petition is completely frivolous and devoid of merits and accordingly, the same is dismissed. The order passed by the learned AFT is affirmed. 27. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.