[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India And Ors vs Banwari Lal And Anr on 1 December, 2025
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
CWP-35651-2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
119 CWP-35651-2025
Date of Decision :01.12.2025
Union of India and others ... Petitioners
Versus
Ex. Naik Banwari Lal and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR
Present: Ms. Neha Jain, Senior Panel Counsel
for petitioners-UOI.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)
1. In the present petition, challenge is to the impugned order dated
06.03.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No.2-Armed Forces
Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Tribunal') by which, the directions were given to the petitioners-Union of
India to grant second service pension for service rendered in the DSC to
respondent No.1 by condoning shortfall of 01 month & 27 days in service
and considering his service as 15 complete years as qualifying service as per
the judgment in Original Application No.1238 of 2016 with MA No.923 of
2016 decided on 01.10.2019 titled Smt. Shama Kaur vs. Union of India
and others.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that though the said
judgment has been implemented but, when the said judgment was relied
upon at a later point of time by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, an appeal
1 of 5
preferred by the Union of India, whereby, an interim order was granted and
therefore, till the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (C)
No.27725-2024, is passed the operation of the impugned order passed by the
Tribunal granting the relief to the respondent No.1 may kindly be stayed.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have
gone through the record with her able assistance.
4. The issue which has been raised for consideration is whether,
the benefit of condonation of shortfall in qualifying service to the extent of
12 months so as to make the respondent No.1 eligible for the grant of second
service pension can be granted in favour of an officer, who retired prior to
the completion of 15 years of mandatory service which is a condition
precedent to attain the benefit of pension. The prayer of the petitioners is
that the respondent No.1 is claiming the benefit of second service pension
while he was working in the Defense Security Corps (DSC) wherein, he has
not completed 15 years of service which is a condition precedent for grant of
second service pension.
5. It may be noticed that the said issue came up for consideration
before the Principal Bench of the Armed Force Tribunal in Shama Kaur's
case (supra), wherein the benefit of condonation of the service period upto
12 months for the purpose of granting second service pension was allowed,
which judgment has already attained finality and the benefit had been
extended in Shama Kaur (supra), who is similarly situated as respondent
No.1.
6. Though, at a later point of time, the same judgment was relied
upon by the Delhi High Court while deciding a bunch of writ petitions
including Writ Petition (C) No.2986 of 2024 decided on 04.09.2024 titled
2 of 5
Union of India and others vs. EX/NK Chinna Vediyappan, wherein, the
reliance was also placed on Shama Kaur's case (supra) to adjudicate claim
of respondent-Army personnel and on an appeal preferred before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India against said order of Hon'ble Delhi High
Court in SLP (C) No.27725- 2024, titled Union of India and others vs. Ex.
NK Chinna Vediyappan, vide order dated 02.12.2024, the direction has
been given not to implement the said order, which has been made the basis
by petitioners while asking for stay of impugned order.
7. Now the question which arises for consideration is whether the
petition is also liable to be adjourned so as to await the said decision in said
case or, the adjudication upon the writ petition filed by the petitioners can be
undertaken.
8. It is relevant to mention here that as per the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Union Territory of Ladakh and others
vs. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference and another, 2023 SCC
Online SC 1140, the following observations have been made by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India:
"35. We are seeing before us judgments and orders by
High Courts not deciding cases on the ground that the leading
judgment of this Court on this subject is either referred to a
larger Bench or a review petition relating thereto is pending.
We have also come across examples of High Courts refusing
deference to judgments of this Court on the score that a later
Coordinate Bench has doubted its correctness. In this regard,
we lay down the position in law. We make it absolutely clear
that the High Courts will proceed to decide matters on the
basis of the law as it stands. It is not open, unless specifically
directed by this Court, to await an outcome of a reference or a
review petition, as the case may be. It is also not open to a
High Court to refuse to follow a judgment by stating that it has
been doubted by a later Coordinate Bench. In any case, when
faced with conflicting judgments by Benches of equal strength
of this Court, it is the earlier one which is to be followed by the
High Courts, as held by a 5-Judge Bench in National Insurance
3 of 5
Company Limited v Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC
6805. The High Courts, of course, will do so with careful
regard to the facts and circumstances of the case before it."
9. A bare perusal of the above would show that merely because
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that one matter is pending
adjudication before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the law that has
already been settled on the said issue on an earlier occasion cannot be
ignored and same has to be given due consideration while adjudicating the
claim.
10. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able
to dispute the fact that in EX/NK Chinna Vediyappan's case (supra) passed
by the Delhi High Court, the benefit was granted even to those officers, who
had more than one year of service deficit, which needed to be condoned to
get the pensionary benefits which is not the case in Shama Kaur's case
(supra) or even in the present petition. Hence, the issue which is pending
adjudication before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is whether the
condonation of service period beyond one year can be granted or not, so as
to grant the benefit of second service pension which is not the issue in the
present case.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioners has conceded the fact
that the issue raised in the present petition was decided in favour of the
respondent No.1 on the basis of the judgment in Shama Kaur's case
(supra), wherein the similar relief had already been granted has already
attained finality and the said judgment stands implemented. Once the issue
in present case is identical to one which has been upheld by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India, which fact has gone unrebutted, merely waiting for
4 of 5
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (C) No. 27725-
2024 so as to decide upon the issue in present case, will not serve any
purpose especially in view of the law laid down in Union Territory of
Ladakh's case (supra). Once, the factual assertion that the claim of the
respondent No.1 is covered by Shama Kaur's case (supra), is not disputed,
no ground is made out for keeping the present petition in abeyance for
adjudication.
12. Further, the Coordinate Bench of this Court while deciding
CWP-8886-2025 decided on 24.04.2025 titled Union of India and others
vs. Ex. Naik Kuldeep Singh, after noticing the said fact, have decided the
claim based upon Shama Kaur's case (supra), wherein also, the fact that
the same was covered by Shama Kaur's case (supra), could not be rebutted.
13. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances as well as the
settled principle of law as noticed hereinbefore, as it has not been shown that
the order dated 06.03.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Tribunal is
perverse either to the facts on record or settled principle of law, no
interference at the hands of this Court is called for and the present writ
petition is accordingly dismissed.
14. Civil miscellaneous application pending, if any, is also disposed
of.
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
JUDGE
(ROHIT KAPOOR)
December 01, 2025 JUDGE
aarti Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
5 of 5
