Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India And Others vs No 14499416 Ex Gnr Surmukh Singh And ... on 21 January, 2026
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi, Vikas Suri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
109 CWP-1298-2026 (O&M)
Decided on : 21.01.2026
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Petitioners
Versus
EX GNR SURMUKH SINGH AND ANOTHER
. . . Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
PRESENT: Mr. N. K. Vashist, Advocate
for the petitioners. .
****
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)
1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 03.11.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2-Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Tribunal') by which, the benefit of invalid pension from the date of his discharge from service i.e. 01.02.1994 for life has been granted in favour of the respondent No.1 by the Tribunal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners-UOI submits that though, the disability of "head injury" suffered by the respondent No.1 was assessed as neither attributable to nor aggravated by the Military service but still the benefit of invalid pension has been granted by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that even the requisite qualifying service 1 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 24-01-2026 05:44:56 ::: 2 CWP-1298-2026 (O&M) period of 10 years was not completed by the officer concerned. i.e. respondent No.1, which is a mandatory condition enshrined in Regulation 198 of Pension Regulations for the Army -1961, wherein it is categorically stated that the minimum period of qualifying service actually rendered and required for grant of invalid pension is 10 years, which aspect has been ignored by the Tribunal while granting the benefit of invalid pension.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners-UOI further argues that the injury suffered by respondent NO.1 was not on a bonafide military duty as the same was suffered while availing the annual leave hence, the Tribunal did not appreciate the facts of the present case in a correct perspective while granting the relief in favour of respondent No.1.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record with his able assistance.
5. Qua first argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that the disability which has been made the basis of invalidation from service has been assessed as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service and hence grant of said benefit to respondent No.1 is incorrect, it may be noticed that as per the regulations governing the service, for the grant of benefit of invalid pension, showing attributability or aggravation due to military service is not required, the said benefit is granted to the army personnel who has been invalidated out of service. The said aspect will also deal with the issue that respondent was on leave during time he suffered from disability as there is no requirement to prove attributability to military service or that the personnel concerned was on active duty or not.
6. As far as the 2nd argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that 10 years of service has not been rendered by the respondent 2 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 24-01-2026 05:44:56 ::: 3 CWP-1298-2026 (O&M) No.1, it may be noticed that as per the settled principle of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP(C) No.20339 of 2011 titled as Union of India and others vs. P.A.Thomas, decided on 14.03.2019 even if an officer is invalided out prior to the completion of 10 years of service, he/she is entitled for the grant of invalid pension. The 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
3 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 24-01-2026 05:44:56 ::: 4 CWP-1298-2026 (O&M) 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 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 4 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 24-01-2026 05:44:56 ::: 5 CWP-1298-2026 (O&M) 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. Once, as per the settled principle of law settled in P.A. Thomas's case (supra), it is well established that the invalid pension is admissible even prior to the completion of 10 years of qualifying service. Consequently, the contention raised by the petitioners to assail the order of the Tribunal granting the benefit of invalid pension in favour of respondent No.1 is devoid of merit and cannot be sustained.
8. The question of the applicability of the instructions dated 16.07.2020, which have been made operative from 04.01.2019, has been raised before this Court. The said issue has already been considered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.28442 of 2023 decided on 07.01.2025 titled 'Union of India and others Vs. Sandeep Kumar and another' and the restriction impose in the instructions that invalid pension will be given only to the officers, who are invalidated out after 2019 has already been set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to rebut the said factual position. Once, the restriction imposed that the invalid pension will be granted only to the officers invalidated after 2019 has already been set aside, the grant of benefit in favour of the respondent by the 5 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 24-01-2026 05:44:56 ::: 6 CWP-1298-2026 (O&M) Tribunal is perfectly valid and legal and the grievance raised in the present writ petition by the petitioners has already been rejected by the Coordinate Bench while passing the order dated 07.01.2025 in CWP No.28442 of 2023 titled as 'Union of India and others Vs. Sandeep Kumar and another'.
9. Further, it is not in dispute that in case the instructions dated 16.07.2020 are made applicable, the benefit extended to the respondents is in consonance with the instructions. That being so, the argument raised that the instructions dated 16.07.2020 have been made applicable retrospectively cannot be accepted in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinbefore.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners-UOI has not been able to rebut the said settled principles of law as well as the facts mentioned hereinbefore.
11. As far as the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the army personnel concerned was not on bonafide duty and that he was on annual leave when he suffered the disability on the basis of which he was invalidated out of service and has been granted the benefit of invalid pension, it shall be noted that the only aspect that is required to be noted is that whether the army personnel concerned was still an employee of UOI or not at the time he suffered from such disability as no such provision has been brought to the notice of this Court to show that in order to grant the benefit of invalid pension, the injury suffered should be on active duty. Even otherwise, invalid pension can be granted even if there is no attributabililty or aggravation qua the injury suffered, which has been made the basis of invalidation from service, which renders the argument infructuous.
12. Keeping in view the fact that the learned counsel for the 6 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 24-01-2026 05:44:56 ::: 7 CWP-1298-2026 (O&M) petitioners-UOI has not been able to prove that the impugned order dated 03.11.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Tribunal is perverse either on the basis of the facts and or settled principle of law, no ground for interference by this Court is made out and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
13. Pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, stands disposed of.
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE ( VIKAS SURI ) JUDGE 21.01.2026 Riya Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No 7 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 24-01-2026 05:44:56 :::