IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

105+256 CM-5942-CWP-2026 in/&

CWP-636-2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision :12.05.2026 Sandeep Singh ...Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Mr. Ashok Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rohit Verma, Senior Panel counsel for respondent-UOI.

* * *

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

CM-5942-CWP-2026

1. Present application has been filed for placing on record reply filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3.

2. As prayed for, application is allowed.

3. Reply filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 is taken on record.

CWP-636-2025

4. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 07.10.2024 (Annexure P/4) passed by the respondent No.4-Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal) by which, the benefit of disability pension sought by the petitioner, has been declined.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though, the relief claimed by the petitioner was for the grant of disability pension but in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner will be satisfied in case his claim for the grant of benefit of invalid pension is considered and decided.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent-UOI submits that the view taken by the Medical Board is that at the time when the petitioner was recruited in the Army, the ailment being suffered by the petitioner escaped notice of the Medical Board and thereafter, the same was detected along with the fact that his father suffered from same disease hence, the disability incurred by petitioner cannot be treated as attributable to or aggravated by military service.

4. Learned counsel for respondents submits that the petitioner cannot be held entitled to said benefit as he was only a recruit and being a recruit, said benefit would not be admissible to him.

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

6. On being asked whether, the benefit of invalid pension, even if, the disability suffered is not assessed to be attributable to or aggravated by military service, the said benefit would be admissible or not, learned counsel for the respondent-UOI has not been able to deny the said fact.

7. Further, in Civil Appeal No. 16438-16440 of 2017 titled as Ex. Rect. Mithlesh Kumar vs. Union of India and others, decided on 27.10.2017, the benefit of invalid pension has been granted to a recruit as well by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by taking note of Pension Regulations for Army, the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the respondents are contrary to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in above noted case.

8. 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 Perso