Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Union Of India And Others vs Parshotam Singh on 29 April, 2026
Author: Sindhu Sharma
Bench: Sindhu Sharma
Sr. No. 09
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
WP(C) No. 753/2024
CM No. 1816/2024
Union of India and others .... Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Through:- Mr. Vikas Sharma, CGSC
V/s
Parshotam Singh .....Respondent(s)
Through:- Mr. Mr. Mr. Rajnish Raina, Sr. Adv
(through Virtual Mode) with
Mr. Prabhat Sangotra, Advocate
Mr. P.L. Sharma, Advocate
CORAM: HON‟BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE
ORDER
29.04.2026
1. The present petition has been filed by the Union of India for setting aside the order dated 09.05.2023 passed by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal, Srinagar Bench at Jammu in O.A. No. 99/2023 titled "Ex Nk Parshotam Singh vs. Union of India and others", by virtue of which the respondent herein has been held entitled to the benefit of second service pension after condoning the shortfall in qualifying service.
2. The respondent was initially enrolled in the Indian Army on 27.06.1985 and was discharged on 31.11.2002 on completion of terms of engagement. For the said service, the respondent was granted regular service pension vide PPO No. S/028590/2002 (Army). The respondent was subsequently re- enrolled in the Defence Security Corps (DSC) on 28.09.2007 and was discharged from service on 31.07.2022 after rendering 14 years and 307 days of qualifying service.
WP (C) No. 753/2024 Page 2 of 4
3. The respondent was not granted pension for the service rendered in the DSC on the ground that he did not possess the minimum qualifying service of 15 years required for grant of pension. The claim of the respondent was denied on account of a shortfall of 58 days in the qualifying service of 15 years.
4. Aggrieved of denial of service pension for the service rendered in DSC, the respondent approached the learned Armed Forces Tribunal, Srinagar Bench at Jammu by filing O.A. No. 99/2023 seeking grant of service pension after condoning the deficiency of 58 days in qualifying service. The learned Tribunal, vide order dated 09.05.2023, allowed the Original Application and directed the petitioners to condone the shortfall in qualifying service and grant second service pension to the respondent. The operative portion of the order reads as under:
"7. Accordingly, the O.A. is allowed.. The shortfall of 58 days in minimum qualifying service of the applicant in getting second service pension is condoned. Applicant is held entitled to get second service pension in DSC as well in addition to pension which he is already getting from the Army.
8. The respondents are directed to grant second service pension to the applicant from the next date of discharge from DSC service. They are further directed to implement this order within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Delay shall carry interest @ 8% per annum till actual payment."
5. Feeling aggrieved of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the petitioners have filed the present petition primarily on the ground that the respondent had admittedly rendered only 14 years and 307 days of qualifying service in DSC and was deficient by 58 days from the mandatory minimum qualifying service of 15 years prescribed under Rule WP (C) No. 753/2024 Page 3 of 4 47 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008 (Part-I). It is contended that there exists no provision under the Pension Regulations or Government policy permitting condonation of deficiency in qualifying service for grant of second service pension.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The controversy involved in the present petition is whether an individual who has served in the Defence Security Corps (DSC) is entitled to condonation of deficiency in qualifying service for earning pension in DSC while already drawing pension from the previous spell of service. The Hon'ble Apex Court in „Union of India vs. Surender Singh Parmar‟, Civil Appeal No. 9389 of 2014, decided on 20.01.2015, has already held that where the deficiency in qualifying service is less than one year, the same is condonable under Regulation 44 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008 (Part-I). The issue now stands settled in "Union of India and others Vs. Balakrishnan Mullikote", reported as 2026 SC INSC 286.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while examining an identical issue, has held in paragraphs 47 and 48 of the aforesaid judgment as under:
"47. This Court is of the view that Union of India through the Ministry of Defence shall determine the length of qualifying services in accordance with Paragraphs 9 and 18 of the Pension Regulations, of 1961 and 2008 respectively, as well as Note 5 appended to the letter dated 30th October 1987.
48. If, upon determination of the length of qualifying service, there remains a shortfall of one year or less, the Respondents shall be entitled to seek condonation of such deficiency for the purpose of pension eligibility, in accordance with Paragraph 125 of the Pension Regulations, 1961 or Paragraph 44 of the Pension Regulations, 2008. This position has already been affirmed by this Court in Surender Singh Parmar (supra)...."WP (C) No. 753/2024 Page 4 of 4
9. Thus, the Union of India is required to determine the qualifying service in terms of Paragraphs 9 and 18 of the Pension Regulations of 1961 and 2008 respectively read with Note 5 appended to communication dated 30.10.1987 and, in the event the deficiency in qualifying service is found to be one year or less, the concerned personnel would be entitled to consideration for condonation of such deficiency under Paragraph 125 of the Pension Regulations, 1961 or Paragraph 44 of the Pension Regulations, 2008.
10. In the present case, admittedly, the respondent falls short of the prescribed qualifying service by 58 days only. The controversy raised in the instant petition, therefore, stands squarely covered by judgment of the Apex Court in "Union of India and others Vs. Balakrishnan Mullikote", (supra).
11. In view of the aforesaid legal position and facts of the case, the Tribunal has rightly held the respondent entitled to the benefit of pension after condoning the shortfall in qualifying service.
12. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 09.05.2023 to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed being without any merit.
1.
(Shahzad Azeem) (Sindhu Sharma)
Judge Judge
Jammu:
29.04.2026
Shafqat