Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also argued that since the claimant herein i.e. respondent No.1 was only a recruit when he was invalided out of service, benefit of invalid pension could not have been granted to him being a recruit.

5. Further, another argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that benefit of invalid pension can only be granted prospectively from 04.01.2019 onwards keeping in view the instruction dated 16.07.2020 issued by Government of India whereas, the case of respondent No.1 related to a period prior to that.

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."

4 of 6 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.

9. Qua the said argument, it may be noticed that a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.28442 of 2023 titled as Union of India and others vs. Sandeep Kumar and another, decided on 07.01.2025 has already set aside the said condition imposed by the Government of India that the grant of invalid pension will be prospective in nature starting from 04.01.2019 onwards keeping in view the judgment in P.A. Thomas's case (supra), which has also been noticed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and held that Soldiers invalidated from service prior to 2019 are also entitled for the benefit of invalid pension.

10. As per the argument putforth by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the disability is neither attributable nor aggravated to military service, hence, grant of benefit in favour of respondent No.1 is incorrect, on being asked whether any such rule exists which prohibit grant of invalid pension in such cases, learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show any such rule.

11. Moreover, as per the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent No.1 being a recruit could not have been granted the benefit of invalid pension, it should be noted that the arguments which have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners have already been dealt with in earlier judgments and that too by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and similarly situated recruits were held entitled for the benefit of invalid pension.