IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 21.01.2026 UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ...Petitioners Versus EX GNR SURMUKH SINGH AND ANOTHER . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI PRESENT: Mr. N. K. Vashist, Advocate for the petitioners. .

****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 03.11.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2-Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Tribunal’) by which, the benefit of invalid pension from the date of his discharge from service i.e. 01.02.1994 for life has been granted in favour of the respondent No.1 by the Tribunal.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners-UOI submits that though, the disability of “head injury” suffered by the respondent No.1 was assessed as neither attributable to nor aggravated by the Military service but still the benefit of invalid pension has been granted by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that even the requisite qualifying service period of 10 years was not completed by the officer concerned. i.e. respondent No.1, which is a mandatory condition enshrined in Regulation 198 of 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.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners-UOI further argues that the injury suffered by respondent NO.1 was not on a bonafide military duty as the same was suffered while availing the annual leave hence, the Tribunal did not appreciate the facts of the present case in a correct perspective while granting the relief in favour of respondent No.1.

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

5. Qua first argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that the disability which has been made the basis of invalidation from service has been assessed as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service and hence grant of said benefit to respondent No.1 is incorrect, it may be noticed that as per the regulations governing the service, for the grant of benefit of invalid pension, showing attributability or aggravation due to military service is not required, the said benefit is granted to the army personnel who has been invalidated out of service. The said aspect will also deal with the issue that respondent was on leave during time he suffered from disability as there is no requirement to prove attributability to military service or that the personnel concerned was on active duty or not.

6. As far as the 2^nd 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 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 (i) 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 certificat