Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 243 J&K
Judgement Date : 2 February, 2026
Sr. No. 50
2026:JKLHC-JMU:128-DB
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
WP (C) No. 165/2026
Date of pronouncement: 02.02.2026
Date of uploading :02.02.2026
1. Union of India through its Secretary to
Government of India, Ministry of Defence,
South Block, New Delhi-110011.
2. Additional Director General Personnel
Services, Adjutant General's Branch,
Integrated HQ of Ministry of Defence
(Army), DHQ PO, New Delhi-11001.
3. Principal Controller of Defence Accounts
(Pension), Draupadi Ghat, Allahabad,
Uttar Pradesh.
4. The Officer-in-Charge,
The Punjab Regiment Records,
Pin 908761 C/O 56 APO. .....Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through :- Mr. Rohan Nanda, CGSC
v/s
Ex RFN Raghubir Singh, S/o Late Shri
Khazur Singh R/o Village Panthi & PO
Samba, Tehsil District Samba (J&K)-184121
.....Respondent(s)
Through :-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
ORDER(ORAL)
02.02.2026
1. Impugned in this petition, filed by the Union of India under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, is an order dated 25.07.2025 passed by the
Armed Forces Tribunal, Srinagar Bench at Jammu ["the Tribunal"] in
OA No. 13/2023 titled "Ex. Rfn Raghubir Singh vs. Union of India &
Others", whereby the respondent a Territorial Army personnel had been
treated at par with regular army personnel and has been held entitled to
disability pension.
2026:JKLHC-JMU:128-DB
2. The issue raised by the petitioners in this petition is no longer res integra
and is fully covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of "Pani Ram vs. Union of India and Others" AIR 2022 SC 182.
3. In the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in para 20 of the
judgment, held thus: -
It is thus clear that the ETF is established as an additional company for 130 Infantry Battalion of Territorial Army. It is not in dispute that the other officers or enrolled persons working in the Territorial Army are entitled to disability pension under Regulation No. 173 read with Regulation No. 292 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961. When the appellant is enrolled as a member of ETF which is a company for 130 Infantry Battalion (Territorial Army), we see no reason as to why the appellant was denied the disability pension. Specifically so, when the Medical Board and COI have found that the injury sustained by the appellant was attributable to the Military Service and it was not due to his own negligence.
4. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find merit in this petition and the
same is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Sanjay Parihar) (Sanjeev Kumar)
Judge Judge
JAMMU
02.02.2026
Manik
Whether this order is reportable: Yes/No
Whether this order is speaking: Yes/No
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!