Union Of India And Others vs Baldev Singh And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 4915 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Union Of India And Others vs Baldev Singh And Another on 10 November, 2025

Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi, Vikas Suri

CWP-33113-2025 (O&M)                           -1-

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH

115                                              CWP-33113-2025 (O&M)
                                                 Date of Decision :10.11.2025


Union of India and others                                         ... Petitioners


                                 Versus


Ex. Sep Baldev Singh & another                                   ...Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI

Present:    Mr. Rohit Verma, Senior Panel Counsel
            for petitoners-UOI.

                   ***

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order

dated 03.12.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No. 2-Armed

Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (for short, 'the Tribunal') by

which, respondent No.1 has been allowed the benefit of invalid pension in

respect of the services rendered by him from 30.03.1979 to 26.07.1981.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon the

report of medical examination of respondent No. 1 to hold that though the

disability of 'Neurosis' for two years @ 20% has been found in respondent

No.1, but the same has been treated 'neither attributable to Military Service

nor aggravated by the Military service' hence, the grant of benefit of invalid

pension to respondent No. 1 by the Tribunal is incorrect.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that once,

1 of 5

CWP-33113-2025 (O&M) -2-

the report of the Medical Board clearly states that the disability of

respondent No. 1 is neither attributable to nor aggravated by military

service, the grant of benefit of invalid pension to respondent No. 1 is

incorrect, and the facts and circumstances in the present case has not been

appreciated in correct aspect by the Tribunal while passing the impugned

order dated 03.12.2024 (Annexure P-1).

4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have

gone through the case file with his able assistance.

5. It is conceded fact that at the time when respondent No.1 was

invalidated out from service on 26.07.1981 on medical grounds, he had

already rendered 02 years, 03 months and 25 days in service with the

petitioner-Union of India. It is also a conceded fact that at the time when

respondent No.1 joined the armed forces i.e. 30.03.1979 and was medically

examined, he was not found suffering from any such disease on the basis of

which, respondent No.1 was ultimately discharged from service on medical

ground.

6. Further, as per the settled principle of settled by the Three Judge

Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (s)-20330/2011 titled as

Union of India and others versus P. A. Thomas, any officer serving with

the Military, who had undergone the medical examination at the time of

selection and was found fit but subsequently, he/she has been discharged

from service before completing the qualifying service, is entitled to the

benefit of invalid pension irrespective of the length of service as the disease

on the basis of which such officer is being discharged is attributable to the

Military service. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are as under:-

2 of 5

CWP-33113-2025 (O&M) -3-

"Rules 38 and 49 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 have been amended on 4.1.2019 in the following manner:-

"2. In the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 -

(i) in rule 38, for sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2), the following subrules shall respectively be substituted, namely:-

"(1) The case of a Government servant acquiring a disability, where the provisions of section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 SLP(C) 20339/2011 (49 of 2016) are applicable, shall be governed by the provisions of the said section:

Provided that such employee shall produce a disability certificate from the competent authority as prescribed under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017.

(2) If a Government servant, in a case where the provisions of section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (49 of 2016) are not applicable, retires from the service on account of any bodily or mental infirmity which permanently incapacitates him for the service, he may be granted invalid pension in accordance with rule 49:

Provided that a Government servant, who retires from service on account of any bodily or mental infirmity which permanently incapacitates him for the service before completing qualifying service of ten years, may also be granted invalid pension in accordance with sub-rule (2) of rule 49 subject to the conditions that the Government servant-

(a) has been examined by the appropriate medical authority either before his appointment or after his appointment to the Government service and declared fit by such medical authority for Government service; and

(b) fulfills all other conditions mentioned in this rule for grant of invalid pension";

(ii) in rule 49, for sub-rule (2), the following sub-rule shall be substituted, namely: -

"(2) Subject to the proviso to sub-rule (2) of rule 38, in the case of a Government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules after completing qualifying service of not less than ten years, the amount of pension shall be

3 of 5

CWP-33113-2025 (O&M) -4-

calculated at fifty per cent of emoluments or average emoluments, whichever is more beneficial to him, subject to a minimum of nine thousand rupees per mensem and maximum of one lakh twenty five thousand rupees per mensem."

The said amendments having been placed before the SLP

(c) 20339/2011 Court, the Court was of the view that further clarification was required which has now been made by a clarificatory Office Memorandum bearing No. 21/01/2016- P&PW(F) dated 12.2.2019 in the following terms:-

"2. In this connection, it is clarified that the condition of qualifying service of ten years for grant of pension under Rule 49(2) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 shall not be applicable in the case of a Government servant retiring on Invalid Pension on account of any bodily or mental infirmity, under Rule 38. Accordingly, Invalid Pension at the rate of 50% of emoluments or average emoluments, whichever is more beneficial, subject to a minimum of nine thousand rupees per mensem and maximum of one lakh twenty five thousand rupees per mensem, shall be payable to a Government servant who retires under Rule 38 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 even before completing a qualifying service of ten years."

Having perused the aforesaid clarification, we are of the view that the matter now stands adequately covered and would be governed by provisions of the amended Rules 38 and 49 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, which would be applied to all eligible cases.

The special leave petition consequently shall stand disposed of in the above terms."

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to dispute

the said proposition of law having been settled in P. A. Thomas's case

(supra).

8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case

as well as the settled principle of law as settled in P. A. Thomas's case

(supra) once, at the time of selection, husband of respondent No.1 was

medically examined and was found fit in all respects and it was only at the

4 of 5

CWP-33113-2025 (O&M) -5-

time of discharge from service after rendering service of 02 years, 03 months

and 25 days with the petitioner- UOI, he was found suffering from

'Neurosis', that being so, the said disease has to be attributed to military

service and the report of medical board cannot take away the right of

respondent No.1 to claim the benefit of invalid pension in such

circumstances.

9. No other arguments has been raised.

10. Hence, in the absence of any perversity being pointed out in the

impugned order dated 03.12.2024 (Annexure P-1) either on the basis of the

facts or the settled principle of law, no ground is made out for any

interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

12. Pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, stands disposed

of.

                                         (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
                                                 JUDGE




                                        (VIKAS SURI)
November 10, 2025                           JUDGE
aarti          Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
               Whether reportable :        No




                                      5 of 5