Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India And Ors vs Noopwinder Singh And Anr on 8 December, 2025
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi, Vikas Suri
CWP-36602-2025 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(119) CWP-36602-2025
Date of Decision : 08.12.2025
Union of India and others ... Petitioners
Versus
No. 15628068 Ex. Rect. Noopwinder Singh and another ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
Present: Mr.Sushant Kareer, Senior Panel Counsel,
for the petitioners-UOI.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)
1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 03.07.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2-Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh at Chandimandir (for short, 'Tribunal') by which, respondent No.1 has been allowed the benefit of invalid pension in respect of the services rendered by him from 24.12.2015 to 17.07.2017.
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 'Severe Depressive Episode with Psychotic Symptoms' has been found in respondent No.1, but the said disability has been held to be 'neither attributable to 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-UOI submits that once, the 1 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 15-12-2025 20:33:00 ::: CWP-36602-2025 [2] 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 perspective by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order dated 03.07.2023 (Annexure P-1). The learned counsel for the petitioners-UOI further submits that even if the first argument is kept in oblivion for the sake of convenience, still the question remains as to how respondent No.1 is being held eligible for grant of benefit of invalid pension even though he has not completed 10 years in service, as qualifying service period, keeping in view the rules governing the service.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the case file with his able assistance.
5. Few facts need to be reiterated for better adjudication of matter at hand. Respondent No.1 was invalidated out from service on 17.07.2017 on medical grounds. Till that time, he had already rendered 01 year, 06 months and 25 days in service with the petitioners-Union of India.
6. The prime contention of petitioners-UOI is based on the ground that the medical report of the respondent made an assessment regarding the disability as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, hence the grant of benefit of invalid pension to respondent No.1, is incorrect. Furthermore, another argument raised by petitioners-UOI is qua the shortfall of respondent No.1 in completing the period of qualifying service, so as to be held eligible for grant of invalid pension. We will deal with the second issue firstly.
2 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 15-12-2025 20:33:01 :::
CWP-36602-2025 [3]
7. As 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 has not fulfilled the condition of completion of qualifying service, for grant of pension, such a bar of completion of qualifying service period will not be applicable in case govt. servant is retiring on invalid pension on account of bodily or mental infirmity. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are as under:-
"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 3 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 15-12-2025 20:33:01 ::: CWP-36602-2025 [4] 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 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 4 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 15-12-2025 20:33:01 ::: CWP-36602-2025 [5] 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."
8. 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). As for the first argument raised by the petitioners/UOI; as per rules governing the service, it has been stated therein that it is immaterial whether the disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service or not, rather the rule even prescribed for grant of benefit of invalid pension in case the personnel had the disability even before entering military service, which disability is aggravated by military service.
9. 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) and rules governing service, the respondent No.1 is held to be entitled for benefit of invalid pension for the service rendered by him in Indian Army.
10. No other arguments has been raised.
11. Hence, in the absence of any perversity being pointed out in the impugned order dated 03.07.2023 (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.
12. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
5 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 15-12-2025 20:33:01 :::
CWP-36602-2025 [6]
13. Pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, stands disposed of.
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
JUDGE
December 08, 2025 (VIKAS SURI)
Anjal JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 15-12-2025 20:33:01 :::