IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 08.12.2025 Union of India and others ... Petitioners Versus No. 15628068 Ex. Rect. Noopwinder Singh and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present: Mr.Sushant Kareer, Senior Panel Counsel, for the petitioners-UOI.

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 03.07.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2-Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh at Chandimandir (for short, ‘Tribunal’) by which, respondent No.1 has been allowed the benefit of invalid pension in respect of the services rendered by him from 24.12.2015 to 17.07.2017.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon the report of medical examination of respondent No. 1 to hold that though the disability of ‘Severe Depressive Episode with Psychotic Symptoms’ has been found in respondent No.1, but the said disability has been held to be ‘neither attributable to nor aggravated by the Military service’. Hence, the grant of benefit of invalid pension to respondent No.1 by the Tribunal, is incorrect. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners-UOI submits that once, the report of the Medical Board clearly states that the disability of respondent No. 1 is neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, the grant of benefit of invalid pension to respondent No. 1 is incorrect, and the facts and circumstances in the present case has not been appreciated in correct perspective by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order dated 03.07.2023 (Annexure P-1). The learned counsel for the petitioners-UOI further submits that even if the first argument is kept in oblivion for the sake of convenience, still the question remains as to how respondent No.1 is being held eligible for grant of benefit of invalid pension even though he has not completed 10 years in service, as qualifying service period, keeping in view the rules governing the service.

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

5. Few facts need to be reiterated for better adjudication of matter at hand. Respondent No.1 was invalidated out from service on 17.07.2017 on medical grounds. Till that time, he had already rendered 01 year, 06 months and 25 days in service with the petitioners-Union of India.

6. The prime contention of petitioners-UOI is based on the ground that the medical report of the respondent made an assessment regarding the disability as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, hence the grant of benefit of invalid pension to respondent No.1, is incorrect. Furthermore, another argument raised by petitioners-UOI is qua the shortfall of respondent No.1 in completing the period of qualifying service, so as to be held eligible for grant of invalid pension. We will deal with the second issue firstly.

7. As as per the settled principle of settled by the Three Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (s)-20330/2011 titled as “Union of India and others versus P. A. Thomas”, any officer serving with the Military, who has not fulfilled the condition of completion of qualifying service, for grant of pension, such a bar of completion of qualifying service period will not be applicable in case govt. servant is retiring on invalid pension on account of bodily or mental infirmity. 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 o