IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 26.02.2026 Union of India and others ....Petitioners Versus Devinder Sharma and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI ----

Present: Mr. Narender Kumar Vashist, Advocate for the petitioners.

****

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 22.08.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2 – The Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal), by which, the benefit of family pension has been allowed in favour of respondent No.1 on the ground that he is 100% disabled. The order dated 22.08.2024 (Annexure P-1) is being challenged by the Union of India on the ground that though, respondent No.1 is 100% disabled but, the said disability only incurred after the son ceased to be eligible for the grant of family pension upon attaining the age of 25 years and therefore, the grant of family pension, which already stood exhausted on attaining the age of 25 years, could not have been restored even if, the son became 100% disabled thereafter, which fact has been ignored by the Tribunal while granting the relief.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the grant of family pension to a disabled child is only granted so as to take care of a disabled child, who is dependant upon the father/mother at the time of his/her death and therefore as, no fact that respondent No.1 was dependant being disabled at the time of the death of his father, the grant of family pension to the son solely on the ground that he is disabled, is not at all correct and the order dated 22.08.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.

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

4. It is a conceded position that a disabled child is entitled to continue with the family pension after the death of his father. The only question raised in present petition which is to be adjudicated is that whether such disability which has incurred after the death of the father or after ceasing of the eligibility of such child to get benefit of family pension, the grant of the said benefit by the Tribunal is correct or not.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners was asked to show any such Rule which stipulate that only the child who was disabled at the time of the death of the pensioner is entitled for grant of family pension and not a child who has incurred disability after his father’s death, the learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show any such Rule. The Rule governing envisages the grant of family pension to a disabled child. Adding words to said rule so as to interpret the same in a manner that the said disability should be incurred by the child during the lifetime of the pensioner, is equivalent to amending the Rule, which jurisdiction though lies with petitioner, but not in a manner done hereinbefore.

6. Once, the Rule only envisages the grant of family pension to a disabled child, being a beneficial legislation, so as to take care of a disabled child of a Soldier, the said clause has to be interpreted in a way that even if, the disability has been incurred after the death of the pensioner, benefit of family pension is to be extended to the disabled child.

7. Further, this Court in CWP-26955-2025 titled as Union of India and others vs. Smt. Mandeesh Barach and another, decided on 10.09.2025, wherein the divorced daughter who became divorcee after the death of the pensioner, was held entitled for the family pension and was granted benefit of family pension by treating her dependent, which settled principal of law has gone unrebutted at the hands of the learned counsel for the petitioners.

8. Once, benefit can be given to such a daughter qua family pension, there seems no reason to deny such benefit to a son who got permanent