IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : February 26, 2026 Union of India and others .. Petitioners Versus Ex. Sepoy Iqbal Singh and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present: Mr. Harkirat Singh Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioners.

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 23.03.2021 (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 disability pension @ 50% including service element for life has been allowed in favour of respondent No.1.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that in the present case, respondent No. 1 has only served in the armed forces for a period of 07 years and hence, he was not entitled for the grant of service element of disability pension, but while granting the benefit of disability pension to respondent No. 1 the Tribunal has directed to also grant the service element of disability pension, which is incorrect.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further argues that even otherwise, when respondent No. 1 was relieved from service, it was assessed by medical board that the disease suffered by respondent no. 1 is aggravated by the military service and the disability of respondent No. 1 was assessed at 30 %

for life and keeping in mind the said aspect, the benefit of disability pension devoid of service element has already been given to him, hence, revising of the same by adding service element is incorrect.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that while passing the impugned order dated 23.03.2021 (Annexure P-1), the Tribunal has ignored the factum that minimum service of 15 years is required for getting the benefit of service pension, and such requirement has not been complied with by the respondent in the present case.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the case file with his able assistance.

6. It may be noticed that the Union of India has raised the claim that the officer concerned did not have 15 years of service in his credit so as to get the benefit of service element while fixing the disability pension, but, the said question of law is no longer res integra as, the same has already been decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 4714-4715 of 2012 titled as Union of India and others versus V. R. Nanukuttan Nair, decided on 07.11.2019 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was dealing with the similar issue as in the present case, though the provisions for considering the issue were that of Navy. The regulation 107 of the Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964 which was discussed in the said judgment is pari materia to the service regulations No. 183 of the Pension Regulation for the Army Act, 1961, which is applicable in the present case.

7. After considering the said regulation, the findings which have been recorded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph No. 19 is as under:-

“19) In view of the principles of interpretation relating to Casus Omissus, we find that a reading of the Regulations does not lead to an inference that the service element should be limited to an individual who has completed minimum 15 years of engagement. Regulation 78 cannot be read into Regulation 105B when no such qualification is provided in Regulation

105B.”

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to rebut the said settled principle of law.

9. Not only this, the similar issue was raised by the Union of India in CWP No. 2412 of 2025, titled as “ Union of India and others versus No. 763665 Ex Cpl Kishor Chandra Mohanty and another”, decided on 29.01.2025 and after imposing the cost of Rs. 25, 000/- , the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, dismissed the said writ petition by recording the findings that despite settled principle of law qua said aspect,