IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 23.02.2026 CWP-5480-2026 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ...Petitioners Versus MADAN LAL ...Respondent

128 CWP-5620-2026 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ...Petitioners Versus EX NAIK BISHAN DASS AND ANR ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present:- Mr. N.K. Verma, Senior Standing Counsel, for the petitioners in CWP-5480-2026.

Mr. Rohit Verma, Senior Standing Counsel, for the petitioners in CWP-5620-2026.

*****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (ORAL)

1. By this order, we propose to dispose of CWP-5480-2026 and CWP-5620-2026 by a common order as the issue involved in these writ petition is the same. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties and for the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from CWP-5620-2026.

2. In the present petition, the challenge is to the order dated 02.05.2023 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal), by which, directions were given to the Union of India (petitioners herein) to grant benefit of service pension to the respondent by considering his service as 15 complete years by condoning shortfall of 346 days in qualifying service period for grant of benefit of service pension as per the judgment in Original Application No.1238 of 2016 with MA No.923 of 2016 decided on 01.10.2019 titled Smt. Shama Kaur vs. Union of India and others, which judgment has also been implemented.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that when the said judgment was relied upon at a later point of time by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court so as to grant benefit of condonation of delay, on an appeal preferred by the Union of India against the said order passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, an interim order of stay has been passed and therefore, till the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (C) No.27725-2024 is passed, the operation of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal granting the relief of condonation of shortfall in qualifying service period to the respondent may kindly be stayed.

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

5. It is a conceded fact that after being discharged from Army service, respondent No.1 was re-enrolled in Defence Security Corps (DSC) for second service on 09.02.2008 and was discharged from DSC on 28.02.2022 after rendering 14 years and 20 days of service having shortfall of 346 days to qualify the term of 15 years for the grant of service pension qua service rendered in DSC.

6. The issue which has been raised is that whether, the benefit of condonation of shortfall in qualifying service to the extent of 12 months so as to make the respondent No.1 eligible for the grant of second service pension can be granted in favour of an officer, who had retired from service prior to the completion of 15 years of service, completion of which period is a condition precedent for grant of such benefit. The prayer of the petitioners is that since respondent No.1 is claiming the benefit of second service pension for the service he rendered in the Defense Security Corps (DSC) for a period of more than 14 years, wherein, completion of 15 years in service is a condition precedent for grant of second service pension, which condition was not fulfilled hence, the said benefit granted to respondent No.1 may kindly be denied.

7. It may be noticed that the said issue came up for consideration before the Principal Bench of the Armed Force Tribunal in Shama Kaur’s case (supra), wherein the benefit of condonation of the shortfall in completion of qualifying service period upto a period of 12 months was allowed, which judgment has already attained finality and the same benefit had been extended in Shama Kaur (supra).

8. Though, at a later point of time, the same judgment was relied upon by the Delhi High Court while deciding a bunch of writ