IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 30.03.2026 Union of India and others ..Petitioners Versus Ex. Rect. Kesarkar Deelip Tukaram and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Mr. Harkirat Sandhu, Advocate for Mr. B.S. Khaira, Senior Panel Counsel for petitioners-UOI.

* * *

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (ORAL)

1. In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the order dated 16.10.2024 (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 invalid pension for life has been granted in favour of the respondent No.1 for his service rendered from 19.01.2002 to

01.08.2003.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners-UOI submits that though, the disability of “Mitral Valve Prolapse with MR’” suffered by the respondent No.1 was assessed at 30% for life but, the said disability was assessed as neither attributable to nor aggravated by the Military service. Despite this fact, the benefit of invalid pension has been granted by the Tribunal.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that even the requisite qualifying service period of 10 years was not completed by the officer concerned. i.e. respondent No.1, which is a mandatory condition enshrined in Regulation 198 of Pension Regulations for the Army –1961, wherein it is categorically stated that the minimum period of qualifying service actually rendered and required for grant of invalid pension is 10 years, which aspect has been ignored by the Tribunal while granting the benefit.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also argued that since the claimant herein i.e. respondent No.1 was only a recruit when he was invalided out of service, benefit of invalid pension could not have been granted to him being a recruit.

5. Further, another argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that benefit of invalid pension can only be granted prospectively from 04.01.2019 onwards keeping in view the instruction dated 16.07.2020 issued by Government of India whereas, the case of respondent No.1 related to a period prior to that.

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

7. 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 prior to the completion of 10 years of service, he/she is 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, in a case where the provisions of section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (49 of 2016) are not applicable, retires from the service on account of any bodily or mental infirmity which permanently incapacitates him for the service, he may be granted invalid pension in accordance with rule 49:

Provided that a Government servant, who retires from service on account of any bodily or mental infirmity which permanently incapacitates him for the service before completing qualifying service of ten years, may als