Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India And Others vs Charanjit Singh And Another on 25 November, 2024
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur, Sudeepti Sharma
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:156469-DB
CWP-30276-2024 (O & M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
CWP-30276-2024
Reserved on: 18.11.2024
Pronounced on: 25.11.2024
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Petitioners
Versus
CHARANJIT SINGH AND ANR. .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Argued by: Ms. Promila Nain, Advocate and
Ms. Harveen Mehta, Advocate
Mr. Amit Thakur, Advocate
for the petitioners/UOI.
Mr. Ravi Badyal, Advocate
for respondent No. 1.
****
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.
1. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner herein-
Union of India, prays for the setting aside of the order dated 06.09.2019
(Annexure P-1), as passed by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal
concerned (hereinafter for short called as the Tribunal), wherebys the
claim of respondent No. 1 for the grant of the service element of the
disability pension besides the grant of benefit of rounding off was
allowed.
Factual Background
2. Respondent No. 1 joined Army on 25.03.1983 and was
discharged on 31.03.2000 post rendering 17 years and 7 days of
service, for which he was granted service pension for life. Thereafter,
respondent No. 1 was enrolled into Defence Service Corps on
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:156469-DB
CWP-30276-2024 (O & M) -2-
04.01.2003 and was discharged therefrom w.e.f. 31.12.2016 for which
he was paid service gratuity and death-cum-retirement gratuity. At the
time of discharge from service, respondent No. 1 was placed in low
medical category P3 (Permanent) owing to disability 'CVA (RT) ICA
OCCLUSION'. The degree of the said disability was assessed @ 50%
for life by the Release Medical Board, besides the same become
declared to be aggravated by rendition of military service. Accordingly,
the petitioner was granted disability element @ 50 % for life w.e.f.
01.01.2017. However, he was denied the service element of the
disability pension for the service rendered by him in the DSC.
3. Feeling aggrieved, respondent No. 1 filed O.A., before the
Armed Forces Tribunal concerned, for grant of service element of
disability pension and for the benefits of rounding off. The said O.A.,
became allowed vide order dated 06.09.2019. The operative part of the
said order is extracted hereinafter.
"........The mere fact that the applicant was in receipt of
pension of the first spell of the Army service cannot be a
ground to refuse him the disability pension for the second
spell in the DSC service. Our views find support from the
judgment of this Tribunal rendered in O.A. No. 146 of
2010 titled as Parbu Ram Vs. U.O.I. and others decided on
23.04.2010.
The Original Application is, accordingly
allowed...."
4. Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid order as passed upon
the O.A. (supra), by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal concerned, the
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:156469-DB
CWP-30276-2024 (O & M) -3-
petitioner-Union of India has filed thereagainst the instant writ petition
before this Court.
Arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and Inferences
of this Court.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
learned Tribunal has failed to harmoniously interpret the relevant
pension regulations, as the same are only applicable to calculate
pension in case of personnel who are invalided out and not to those
who are discharged on completion of terms of engagement or on some
other grounds. The said Regulations do not mandate payment of both
disability element and service element, as both are independent of each
other and are separately granted on completion of respective conditions
necessary to earn the same.
The relevant pension regulations are extracted hereinafter.
Pension Regulations for Army, 1961
132. The minimum period of qualifying service (without
weightage) actually rendered and required for earning service
pension shall be 15 years."
266. The grant of pensionary awards to personnel of the
Defence Secuirity Corps shall be governed by the same general rules
as are applicable to combatants of the Army, except where they are
inconsistent with the provisions of the regulations in this Chapter."
Pension Regulations for Army, 2008
47. Unless otherwise provided for, the minimum
qualifying service for earning a service pension is 15 years."
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:156469-DB
CWP-30276-2024 (O & M) -4-
173. The grant of pensionary awards to personnel of the
Defence Secuirity Corps shall be governed by the same Regulations as
are applicable to Personnel below Officer Rank of the Army, except
where they are inconsistent with the provisions of the regulations in
this Chapter."
The learned Counsel for the petitioner submit that the
Tribunal while allowing the O.A. (supra) had wrongly interpreted the
provisions (supra) by taking Regulation 179 of the Pension Regulations
for the Army, 1961 in isolation. The said regulation 179 is extracted
hereinafter.
179. An individual retired/discharged on completion of
tenure or on completion of service limits or on completion of terms of
engagement or on attaining the age of 50 years (irrespective of their
period of engagement), if found suffering from a disability attributable
to or aggravated by military service and recorded by Service Medical
Authorities, shall be deemed to have been invalided out of service and
shall be granted disability pension from the date of retirement, if the
accepted degree of disability is 20 percent or more, and service element
if the degree of disability is less than 20 percent. The service
pension/service gratuity, if already sanctioned and paid, shall be
adjusted against the disability pension/service element, as the case may
be.
6. In the said regard, it is relevant to refer to a verdict
rendered by the learned Tribunal concerned in case O.A. No. 324 of
2016 titled as Om Parkash Guleria Vs. Union of India & Ors,
decided on 10.08.2018, whereins a similar question was put forth
before the Tribunal concerned, that 'whether the applicant who was in
receipt of army pension at the time of his re-enrollment in the DSC,
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:156469-DB
CWP-30276-2024 (O & M) -5-
is entitled to the disability pension in the DSC service also ?' The
learned Tribunal concerned after considering the relevant regulations
observed that in terms of Regulation 179 of the Pension Regulations for
the Army, 1961, the applicant was entitled to disability pension
consisting of service element as well as disability element. Further, the
Tribunal also observed that the mere fact that the applicant was in
receipt of pension of his first spell of Army service does not disentitle
him to became an able recipient of the component of disability pension
thus for the second spell of service in the DSC. The said verdict was
challenged by the Union of India before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
the same was upheld by the Apex Court in its verdict rendered in case
titled as Union Of India & Ors. Vs. Om Prakash Guleria, decided on
on 27 August, 2021, to which Civil Appeal No. (Diary No. 9476 of
2021) became assigned. The relevant paragraphs, as occur in the said
verdict are extracted hereinafter.
"2. Besides the delay of 515 days in filing the appeal,
which has not been satisfactorily explained, even on merits, we find no
error in the judgment dated 10 August 2021 of the Armed Forces
Tribunal. The Tribunal has correctly construed the provisions of the
pension regulations and the ultimate conclusion, entitling the
respondent to the service element of the disability pension and the
benefit of rounding off, does not suffer from any error.
3. The Civil Appeal is, therefore, dismissed on the ground
of delay as well as on merits. "
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
in the DSC service, a minimum service of 15 years was required rather
to earn service pension, whereas, respondent No. 1 had rendered only
13 years, 11 months and 28 days of service with the DSC whereafters,
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:156469-DB
CWP-30276-2024 (O & M) -6-
he was discharged from the DSC service on compassionate grounds at
his own request.
8. However, yet the said non rendition of the supra qualifying
period of service in the DSC but would not dis-entitle the present
respondent, to become an able recipient of the component of disability
pension, thus consisting of both service element of DSC service as well
as of the disability element. The reason being that, though the present
respondent for his service in the DSC, thus being construed to be the
apposite qualifying service, thereupon, though he was required to be
completing the requisite period of 15 years, rather for his becoming
entitled for service pension. However, when during the period of his
serving in the DSC, he acquired a disability which has been stated to
arise from rendition of military service or the same being attributable to
or aggravated by military service, therebys the said entailment of a
disability, thus during the spell of the present respondent serving in the
DSC, whereafter he became debarred to become granted any further
extension in the DSC service, rather when he was required to be
invalided or discharged from service, as aptly done in the instant case.
9. If so, since the above impediment, did well estop the
present respondent, rather to earn the requisite period of qualifying
service, for therebys his becoming entitled for the apposite service
pension. As such, when his service neither became extended nor when
he become discharged on ground of some proven mis-conduct.
Contrarily, when merely on account of disability (supra), as became
entailed upon him, that too, evidently during the phase of his rendering
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:156469-DB
CWP-30276-2024 (O & M) -7-
military service, that he became precluded to complete the supra
qualifying period, rather for his therebys earning service pension, for
his rendering service in the DSC. Resultantly, the inability of the
present respondent to complete the qualifying period of service in the
DSC, thus cannot stand in the way of his becoming endowed the benefit
of service pension, hence even for the term of 13 years, 11 months and
28 of service rendered in the DSC, reiteratedly merely on the premise
that he had not completed the apposite 15 years of qualifying service in
the DSC.
10. Therefore, in terms of the expostulations of law (supra)
rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Union Of India
vs Om Prakash Guleria, respondent No. 1 was entitled for service
element of DSC service besides of the disability element thereof, as
aptly done by the Tribunal concerned.
11. Further, since in terms of the judgment rendered by the
Apex Court, in case titled as 'Union of India Vs. Ram Avtar', reported
in 2014 SCC Online 1761, whereins, a declaration is made to the
extent, that the benefit of rounding off, rather has to become endowed
to the concerned. Resultantly also thereunders an indefeasible right
became vested in the present respondent for his seeking qua the
apposite roundings off being made in his favour.
12. Even otherwise since the declaration of law made in
verdict (supra) makes the said declaration to be an expostulation of law
in rem, therebys, the expostulation of law in rem, as made in verdict
(supra) also makes the thereunders conferred benefits vis-a-vis the
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:156469-DB
CWP-30276-2024 (O & M) -8-
defence personnel concerned, to, prima facie, also entitle the
concerned, thus to at any time seek the granting of the endowments as
made thereunders, and that too, in the fullest complement, as spelt
thereunders, besides irrespective of the bar, if any, of delay and laches.
Final Order of this Court.
13. In aftermath, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition
and with observations above, the same is dismissed.
14. The impugned order, as passed by the learned Tribunal
concerned, is maintained and affirmed.
15. Disposed of alongwith all pending application(s), if any.
(SURESHWAR THAKUR)
JUDGE
(SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
25.11.2024 JUDGE
kavneet singh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
8 of 8
