IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 27.11.2025 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ...Petitioners Versus SEPOY JADGISH RAM AND ANR ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI 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 25.01.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No. 2-Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), by which, respondent No.1 has been granted the benefit of pension, on the ground that the same is perverse.

2. The argument raised by petitioners-UOI is that respondent No.1 was recruited 27.02.1963 and was discharged on 01.03.1978 but he never claimed pension till the date when the Original Application was filed, hence the delay in claim of the pension has not been considered while granting the benefit of pension to respondent No.1 by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that there was no record available to grant the benefit especially after a period of 40 years upon the delayed claim.

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

4. The factum that respondent No.1 worked from 1963 to 1978 with the petitioners is a conceded fact. The said period is more than 15 years, which is required for the grant of pension.

5. Being the welfare State, it was the duty of the petitioners to grant the benefit of pension admissible to a soldier, who has worked with petitioners.

6. Further, the argument that the claim was raised after a delay, it may be noticed that as per the settled principle of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India and others vs. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648, delay cannot be a ground for denying the claim of disability pension. The relevant paras of the said judgment are as under:-

“5. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the re- opening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or re-fixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. In so far as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition.

6. In this case, the delay of 16 years would affect the consequential claim for arrears. The High Court was not justified in directing payment of arrears relating to 16 years, and that too with interest. It ought to have restricted the relief relating to arrears to only three years before the date of writ petition, or from the date of demand to date of writ petition, whichever was lesser. It ought not to have granted interest on arrear