[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India And Others vs Ex Nk Ramesh Chand And Another on 2 December, 2025
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi, Vikas Suri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
112
CWP-35807-2025
Date of Decision: 02.12.2025
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Petitioners
Versus
EX NK RAMESH CHAND AND ANOTHER
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
Present:- Mr. N.K. Verma, Senior Panel Counsel,
for the petitioners.
*****
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (ORAL)
1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the order dated
07.03.2025 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional
Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal), by which,
directions were given to the Union of India (petitioners herein) to grant
benefit of service pension to the respondent by considering his service as 15
complete years by condoning shortfall of 02 months and 10 days days in
qualifying service period for grant of benefit of service pension 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, which judgment has also been implemented.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that when the said
judgment was relied upon at a later point of time by the Hon'ble Delhi High
Court so as to grant benefit of condonation of delay, on an appeal preferred
by the Union of India against the said order passed by the Hon'ble Delhi
1 of 6
CWP-35807-2025 (2)
High Court, an interim order of stay has been passed 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 of condonation of shortfall in qualifying service period to
the respondent 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. It is a conceded fact that after discharged from Army service,
respondent No.1 was re-enrolled in Defence Security Corps (DSC) for
second service on 12.01.2008 and was discharged from DSC on 04.10.2020
after rendering 14 years, 09 months and 20 days having shortfall of 02
months and 10 days to qualify the term of 15 years for the grant of service
pension qua service rendered in DSC.
5. The issue which has been raised is that whether, the benefit of
condonation of shortfall in qualifying service to the extent of 12 months so
as to make the husband of the respondent eligible for the grant of second
service pension can be granted in favour of an officer, who had retired from
service prior to the completion of 15 years of service, completion of which
period is a condition precedent for grant of such benefit. The prayer of the
petitioners is that since respondent No.1 is claiming the benefit of second
service pension for the service he rendered in the Defense Security Corps
(DSC) for a period of more than 14 years, wherein, completion of 15 years
in service is a condition precedent for grant of second service pension, which
condition was not fulfilled hence, the said benefit granted to respondent may
kindly be denied.
2 of 6
CWP-35807-2025 (3)
6. 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 shortfall in
completion of qualifying service period upto a period of 12 months was
allowed, which judgment has already attained finality and the same benefit
had been extended in Shama Kaur (supra).
7. 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
Union of India and others vs. EX/NK Chinna Vediyappan, wherein, the
reliance was also placed on Shama Kaur's case (supra) for purpose of
condonation of shortfall in completion of qualifying service period, and on
an appeal preferred by UOI before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India 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 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India not to implement the said
order passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
8. Now question which arises for consideration is that whether the
present petition is also liable to be adjourned so as to await the said decision
or, the adjudication of the writ petition filed by the petitioners can be
undertaken.
9. 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
3 of 6
CWP-35807-2025 (4)
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
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."
10. A bare perusal of the above would show that merely because
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.
11. 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 Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the benefit of condonation of shortfall in
service was granted even to the officers, who had sought more than one year
4 of 6
CWP-35807-2025 (5)
of service to be condoned to get the pensionary benefits, which was not the
case in Shama Kaur's case (supra) or even in the present petition. Hence,
the issue pending for adjudication before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India, which has been made the basis by petitioners for keeping the present
petition in abeyance is that whether the benefit of condonation of shortfall in
service beyond one year can be granted or not, so as to grant the pension
which issue does not exist in the present petition.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioners has conceded the fact
that the issue raised in the present petition was decided in favour of the
husband of the respondent on the basis of the judgment in Shama Kaur's
case (supra), wherein the similar relief had already been granted to the
claimants and which judgment has already attained finality upon Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India 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 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 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.
13. 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
5 of 6
CWP-35807-2025 (6)
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.
14. No other argument has been raised.
15. 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 07.03.2025 (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 needed.
16. No ground is made out for interference by this Court.
17. The present writ petition is dismissed.
18. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
( HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI )
JUDGE
( VIKAS SURI )
December 02, 2025 JUDGE
harish
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable No
6 of 6
