According to the case discussed in this update, the answer is not always yes.

In its order dated 27 March 2026, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the government’s petition and upheld the relief granted earlier in favour of Lt Col Amrita Pakula Jyoti Lakshmi. The significance of this decision lies in one central point. Even though the disability assessment was below 20 percent, the medical material on record showed that the disability was attributable to military service, and the officer had been invalided out on that basis. In such a situation, the court did not accept the denial of disability pension.

This is why the judgment is being seen as highly important. In many cases, personnel are told that because the disability percentage is less than 20 percent, no disability element is payable. But this ruling underlines that percentage alone cannot be looked at in isolation. When the disability is linked to service and that very condition leads to invaliding out, the matter becomes much stronger in law.

The court’s reasoning also draws strength from important Supreme Court principles laid down in earlier cases such as Sukhvinder Singh and Ram Avtar. Those judgments have repeatedly been relied upon in disability pension matters, especially where the issue is not just the percentage, but the real service connection and the manner in which the person was boarded out or released.

What makes this ruling especially relevant is the practical consequence. The court accepted the approach that in such circumstances the disability can be rounded off and treated as 50 percent for the purpose of disability pension benefits. That is a major relief point, because it directly affects financial entitlement. For many defence personnel, the dispute is not only about medical classification. It is about long-term income security after service, especially when a service-related condition has already ended a military career.

The larger lesson from this case is that many affected personnel may have stronger claims than they realise. A rejection based only on “below 20 percent” does not always close the matter. The exact wording of the Release Medical Board or Invaliding Medical Board is crucial. If the disability is recorded as attributable to military service, and the person is invalided out because of that condition, the case may deserve a much closer legal review.

That is where documentation becomes critical. Medical board proceedings, discharge papers, disability findings, attributability opinion, AFT orders, and correspondence from the authorities can all become decisive pieces of evidence. A weak understanding of paperwork often causes deserving cases to be dropped too early. Many families assume that once the department says no, nothing more can be done. But court rulings like this show that legal remedies can still exist.

This judgment does not mean every case below 20 percent will automatically result in pension. Each matter still depends on its own facts, medical record and service connection. But it does send a strong message that authorities cannot rely only on the number while ignoring the full legal and factual background of the case.

For defence pensioners and those facing similar disputes, this decision may serve as an important reference point. It reinforces a broader principle that service-related disability claims must be judged fairly, not mechanically. And where the disability is clearly connected to military service and has led to invaliding out, denial of pension may not stand judicial scrutiny.

For many veterans and families, this is more than a technical court order. It is a reminder that rights under disability pension law are worth pursuing with patience, proper records and sound legal advice.

If someone you know has been denied disability pension because the assessed disability was shown below 20 percent, this ruling may be a strong starting point for reviewing that case more carefully.

Watch the Full Video for Complete Details