IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: 14.01.2025 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. … Petitioner (s)

Versus No.18001817, EX. SPR. LAKHDEV SINGH AND ANOTHER ... Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Mr.Varun Veer Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

****

ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL)

The petitioners have challenged the order dated 27.07.2017 (Annexure P-1) whereby the respondent No.1 has been held eligible for rounding off, of the disability element of disability pension to 50% as against 20%.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are not challenging the judgment with regard to the finding about the entitlement of the respondent No.1 to disability pension but they are disputing the service element as respondent No.1 had put in only 5 years of service when he had been discharged whereas the requisite service, which entitles Sepoy (an army personnel) for pension, is 15 years. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to Regulation 132 of the Pension Regulations for Army, 1961 wherein minimum qualifying period for earning pension has been set out to be 15 years. He has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of ‘Bhola Singh Vs. Union of India and others, (2010) 15 SCC 126 Heard.

The respondent No.1 is stated to have served the Indian Army as a Sepoy. He was discharged from service as he had suffered disability. The Medical Board had assessed disability of the respondent at 20% for life which was deemed to have been aggravated by military service. The Armed Forces Tribunal-respondent No.2 had relied upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Mahavir Singh Narwal Vs. Union of India, 2004, SCC OnlineDel 348 wherein the Delhi High Court had held that disability pension cannot be denied on the ground that the petitioner therein was discharged from service on the compassionate grounds. This judgment had been affirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.24171 of 2004, Union of India Vs. Mahavir Singh Narwal, decided on 04.01.2008.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to Regulation

132 of the Pension Regulations for Army, 1961 wherein minimum qualifying period for earning pension has been set out to be 15 years. However, these Regulations would not be applicable in the case of respondent No.1 for the reason that he had been discharged from service on account of his disability. Learned counsel has not been able to point out any pension regulation which stipulates a minimum number of years of service for an employee, who has been discharged on account of disability, to be eligible for disability pension. There is no dispute that the respondent No.1 had suffered disability while in service, which was aggravated due to his military service. The respondent No.1 had served Indian Army for over 5 years and was entitled to the benefits including disability pension in that regard. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. V.R. Nanakuttan Nair, (2019) 19 SCC 690, wherein it has been held that plain reading of Regulations does not infer that service element should be limited to individual who has completed minimum 15 years of engagement. The relevant pargraphs of the judgment are reproduced hereunder:

“xxxx

20. 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 105-B when no such qualification is provided in Regulation 105-B.

21. Still further, Regulation 107 providing service element in the event of an individual who has not completed the qualifying service will become otiose. A reading of all the regulations harmoniously and keeping in view the object of grant of disa