The court upheld the principle that established legal precedents must be followed even in light of pending appeals, ensuring consistency in the application of law regarding qualifying service for pension benefits.

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)

1. In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the order dated 21.03.2023 (Annexure P-1) by which, directions were given to the Union of India (petitioners herein) to grant second service pension for service in the Defence Security Corps (herein after referred to ‘DSC’) to respondent No.1 by condoning shortfall of 10 days and considering his service as 15 complete years as qualifying service 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 but, when the said judgment was relied upon at a later point of time by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, an appeal preferred by the Union of India, whereby, an interim order was 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 respondents may kindly be stayed.

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

3. The issue which has been raised for consideration is whether, the benefit of condonation of shortfall in qualifying service to the extent of 12 months so as to make the respondent No.1 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 to attain the benefit of pension. The prayer of the petitioners is that the respondent No.1 is claiming the benefit of second service pension while he was working in the Defence Security Corps (DSC) wherein, he has not completed 15 years of service which is a condition precedent for grant of service pension.

4. 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 for the purpose of granting service pension was allowed, which judgment has already attained finality and the benefit had been extended to Shama Kaur, who is similarly situated as respondent No.1.

5. Though, at a later point of time, the same judgment was 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) to adjudicate claim of respondent-Army personnel and on an appeal preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India against said order of Hon’ble Delhi High Court 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, which has been made the basis by petitioners while asking for stay of impugned order.

6. Now the question which arises for consideration is whether the petition is also liable to be adjourned so as to await the said decision in said case or, the adjudication upon the writ petition filed by the petitioners can be undertaken.

7. 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 Conference and another, 2023 SCC Online SC 1140, the following observations have been made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India:

“35. We are seeing before us judgments and orders by High Courts not deciding cases on the ground that the lea