IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 09.03.2026 CWP-6962-2026 UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ...Petitioners Versus NO87982 EX AG ERA 4 NAVY JOGINDER PAUL HANDA AND ANR ...Respondents

130 CWP-7005-2026 UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ...Petitioners Versus SMT SUMA DEVI AND ANR ...Respondents

132 CWP-7013-2026 UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ...Petitioners Versus EX RECT NARESH KUMAR AND ANR ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present:- Mr. Narender Kumar Vashisht, Senior Panel Counsel, for the petitioners (in CWP-6962-2026). Dr. Anju Sharma, Senior Panel Counsel, for the petitioners (in CWP-7005-2026) (through V.C.).

Mr. Shubham Thakur, Senior Panel Counsel, for the petitioners (in CWP-7013-2026).

*****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (ORAL)

1. By this order, we propose to dispose of aforementioned three writ petitions i.e. CWP-6962-2026, CWP-7005-2026 and CWP-7013-2026 by a common order as the issue involved in these writ petitions is the same. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties and for the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from CWP-6962-2026.

2. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 09.01.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2-Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), by which, respondent No.1 has been allowed the benefit of invalid pension from the day next to the date of discharge from service i.e.

17.07.1971 for life.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that once respondent No.1 did not render minimum 10 years of service, which is a condition precedent for grant of invalid pension, the benefit of invalid pension could not have been granted. Further, the Tribunal has even wrongly granted the benefit of life time arrears of invalid pension from 17.07.1971 for life. Hence, the grant of invalid pension along with life time arrears to respondent No.1 vide impugned order dated 09.01.2023 (Annexure P-1) is incorrect.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further places reliance upon the instructions dated 16.07.2020 to contend that though the requirement of 10 years in service for grant of invalid pension has been done away with, but the said instructions are to be made applicable only prospectively, hence, even otherwise, since respondent No.1 retired from service almost five decades prior to issuance of said instructions, he would not be entitled to benefit of invalid pension.

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

5. The first grievance which has been raised by learned counsel for petitioners so as to challenge the grant of invalid pension is that minimum service period required of 10 years has not been rendered by respondent No.1, it shall 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 of service prior to the completion of 10 years of service, he/she is still 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 certificate from the competent authority as prescribed under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017.

(2) If a Government servant