The court upheld that previous rulings on service pension eligibility are to be maintained as they reflect settled law, regardless of pending higher court decisions.

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the order dated 06.03.2025 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal), by which, directions were given to the Union of India (petitioners herein) to grant service pension to the respondent by considering his service as 15 complete years by condoning shortfall of 09 months and 06 days qualifying service for service pension as per the judgment in Original Application No.1238 of 2016 with MA No.923 of 2016 decided on 01.10.2019 titled Smt. Shama Kaur vs. Union of India and others, which judgment has also been implemented. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that when the said judgment was relied upon at a later point of time by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, on an appeal preferred by the Union of India, an interim order has been granted and therefore, till the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (C)

No.27725-2024, is passed the operation of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal granting the relief to the respondent may kindly be stayed.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record with his able assistance.

4. It is a conceded fact that the respondent enrolled in Indian Army on 28.06.1973 and was discharged on 30.06.1997 after completing 24 years and 03 days of service thereafter the respondent was re-enrolled in Defence Security Corps (DSC) for second service on 07.04.1998 and retired from DSC on 30.06.2012 on attaining the age of superannuation after rendering 14 years 02 months and 23 days having shortfall of 09 months and 06 days to qualify the terms of 15 years for the grant of pension qua service rendered in DSC.

5. The issue which has been raised is whether, the benefit of condonation of shortfall in qualifying service to the extent of 12 months so as to make the respondents eligible for the grant of second service pension can be granted in favour of an officer, who retired prior to the completion of 15 years of mandatory service which is a condition precedent. The prayer of the petitioners is that the respondent is claiming the benefit of second pension while working in the Defense Security Corps (DSC) wherein, he has not completed 15 years of service which is a condition precedent for grant of second service pension.

6. It may be noticed that the said issue came up for consideration before the Principal Bench of the Armed Force Tribunal in Shama Kaur’s case (supra), wherein the benefit of condonation of the service period upto 12 months was allowed, which judgment has already attained finality and the same benefit had been extended to Shama Kaur.

7. Though, at a later point of time, the same judgment has been relied upon by the Delhi High Court while deciding a bunch of writ petitions including Writ Petition (C) No.2986 of 2024 decided on 04.09.2024 titled Union of India and others vs. EX/NK Chinna Vediyappan , wherein, the reliance was also placed on Shama Kaur’s case (supra), and on an appeal preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (C) No.27725- 2024, titled Union of India and others vs. Ex. NK Chinna Vediyappan, vide order dated 02.12.2024, the direction has been given not to implement the said order.

8. Now question arises whether the present petition is also liable to be adjourned to await the said decision or, the adjudication of the writ petition filed by the petitioners can be undertaken.

9. It is relevant to mention here that as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Union Territory of Ladakh and others vs. Jammu and Kashmir National Conferenc