Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India And Others vs Ex Hav Ranjit Singh And Another on 19 February, 2026
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi, Vikas Suri
124 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-5199
5199-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 19
19-02-2026
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
........Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
RANJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER
........Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
Present: Ms. Krishna Dayama, Senior Panel Counsel
for the petitioners-UOI.
(joined through V.C.).
***
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral)
1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 06.11.2024 (Annexure P-1) P 1) passed by respondent No.2 No.2-Armed Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Tribunal') by which, the benefit of invalid pension for his service rendered from 21.09.1965 21.09 to 09.02.1973 has been granted in favour of the respondent No.1 by the Tribunal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners petitioners-UOI UOI submits that the said benefit was claimed after a period of 39 years, which itself should have been a ground to deny the said benefit to the respondent No.1.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners petitioners-UOI UOI submits that though, the disability of "SCHIZOPHRENIC SCHIZOPHRENIC REACTION (UNSOUND MIND) 295", suffered by respondent No.1 was assessed @ 40% for two years and 1 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 26-02-2026 20:28:56 ::: CWP-5199-2026 (O&M) -2- the disability pension claim of the respondent No.1 was forwarded to Pension Sanctioning Authority i.e. PCDA (P), Allahabad, who considered the disability @ 60% for two years instead of 40% w.e.f. 09.02.1973 to 15.01.1975. Thereafter, he was brought before the subsequent medical reviews and was granted disability element from time to time till 08.01.1982. Last RE-Survey Medical Board (hereinafter referred as "RSMB") of the applicant was held at Military Hospital Jalandhar on 21.09.1981 who assessed his disability Nil for life w.e.f. 09.01.1982 and discontinued the disability element of disability pension.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners-UOI further submits that even the requisite qualifying service of 10 years was not complete by the respondent no.1, which is a mandatory condition enshrined in Regulation 198 of the 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. Further, as per the instructions dated 16.07.2020, the benefit of invalid pension shall be given only to the officers invalidated out after 2019 and hence, the said instructions cannot be made applicable retrospectively as in the present set of facts, the officer was invalidated on 09.02.1973.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners-UOI and have gone through the records of the present case with her able assistance.
6. As far as the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that 10 years of service has not been rendered by the respondent 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 2 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 26-02-2026 20:28:56 ::: CWP-5199-2026 (O&M) -3- 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 (1) 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
3 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 26-02-2026 20:28:56 ::: CWP-5199-2026 (O&M) -4- 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
4 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 26-02-2026 20:28:56 ::: CWP-5199-2026 (O&M) -5- 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. 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 5 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 26-02-2026 20:28:56 ::: CWP-5199-2026 (O&M) -6- already been set aside, the grant of benefit in favour of the respondent No.1 by the 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. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as settled principle of law settled in P.A Thomas's case (supra), the benefit of invalid pension from 21.09.1965 to 09.02.1973 granted to respondent No.1 by the Tribunal, is in accordance to law and has been rightly granted.
11. No other argument is raised.
12. No ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the order dated 06.11.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Tribunal and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
13. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
JUDGE
19-02-2026 (VIKAS SURI)
Sapna Goyal
JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
6 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 26-02-2026 20:28:56 :::