High Courts must proceed based on existing law without awaiting related cases unless specifically directed otherwise.

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 14.08.2024 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No. 2-Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (in short, ‘the Tribunal’) by which, the claim of the respondent No.1 for the grant of benefit of life time arrears of service pension as well as the benefit of ordinary family pension with effect from the date of death of the husband of the respondent No.1 by condoning the shortfall in service of 145 days has been allowed by the Tribunal by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Full Bench in O.A.1238 of 2016 titled as Smt Shama Kaur vs. Unioin of India and other. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the case file with her able assistance.

3. It may be noticed that late husband of the respondent No.1 was enrolled in the army on 21.09.1966 and was discharged on 31.01.1990 after completion of more than 24 years of service, for which he was granted the service pension. Thereafter, husband of the respondent No.1 got re-enrolled in Defence security corps on 24.04.1990 and was ultimately discharged from service on 31.12.2004 after completion of 14 years and 220 days in service upon attaining age of superannuation but he was not granted service pension for the second spell of service by condoning the short fall of 145 days in the qualifying service. It may be further noticed that the same question of law has come up for consideration before this Court in CWP-14095-2025 titled as Union of India and others vs. Ex.Naik Hardev Singh and another, decided on 19.08.2025 wherein, the same plea was taken by the petitioners- UOI and after considering the said plea, the following order was passed by this Court:-

7. 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 been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the benefit had been extended to Shama Kaur.

8. 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.

9. Now question arises whether both the petitions are also liable to be adjourned to await the said decision or, the adjudication of the writ petition filed by the petitioners can be undertaken.

10. 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 leading judgment of this Court on this subject is either referred to a larger Bench or a review petition relating thereto is pending. We have also come across examples of High Courts refusing deference to judgments of this Court on the score that a later Coordinate Bench has doubted its correctness. In this regard, we lay down the position in law. We make it absolutely clear that the High Courts will proceed to decide m