##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

118 CWP-12706-2026 (O&M)

Decided on :27.04.2026

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Petitioners

Versus

CHAMKOR SINGH AND ANOTHER

. . . Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR

PRESENT: Ms. Bhavana Datta, Senior Panel Counsel

for the petitioners.

****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order

dated 30.05.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2-Armed Forces

Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the

Tribunal’) by which, respondent No.1 has been allowed the benefit of

invalid pension from the day next to the date of his discharge from service

i.e. 18.12.2016 for life.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon the

report of medical examination of the respondent No.1 to hold that though the

disability of “LIP TIP VITILIGO” for life has been found in respondent

No.1, but the same has been treated as ‘neither attributable to nor aggravated

by the military service’ despite the disability being ‘neither attributable nor

aggravated by military service, the grant of benefit of invalid pension to

respondent No. 1 has been wrongly allowed by the Tribunal.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that once,

the respondent was a recruit, he could not have been granted the benefit and

even otherwise invalid pension cannot be granted prior to completion of ten

RIYA

2026.04.29 11:02

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

2

CWP-12706-2026 (O&M)

years of qualifying service keeping in view the rules governing the service.

Therefore, the grant of benefit of invalid pension to respondent No. 1 is

incorrect, and the facts and circumstances in the present case have not been

appreciated in correct perspective by the Tribunal while passing the

impugned order dated 30.05.2023 (Annexure P-1).

4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have

gone through the case file with her able assistance.

5. It is conceded fact that at the time when respondent No. 1 was

invalidated out from service on 04.01.2017 on medical grounds, he had

already rendered more than 08 months of service with the petitioner-Union of

India. It is also a conceded fact that at the time when respondent No. 1

joined the armed forces i.e. 29.04.2016 he was medically examined and was

not found to be suffering from any such disease on the basis of which,

respondent No. 1 was ultimately invalidated out from service on medical

ground.

6. As per the settled principle of law settled by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India in P. A. Thomas (supra) 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

RIYA

2026.04.29 11:02

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

3

CWP-12706-2026 (O&M)

(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 th