IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : April 27, 2026 Union of India and others .. Petitioners Versus Ex. Rakshak Pawan Kumar (Retd.) and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present: Mr. Ashish Chaudhary, Senior Panel Counsel, for the petitioners.

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)

1. In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the order dated 27.04.2023 (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 has been granted in favour of the respondent No.1 for his service rendered from 06.05.2016 for life.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners-UOI submits that though, the disability of “SCHIZOPHRENIA” suffered by the respondent No.1 was assessed at 40% for life but, the said disability was assessed as neither attributable to nor aggravated by the Military service and 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 his able assistance.

7. It is conceded fact that respondent No.1 was enrolled in Army on 24.02.1994 and discharged from service w.e.f. 31.01.2013 (AN) on completion of terms of engagement under Item III (i) of Rules 13 (3) of Army Rules 1954 after rendering 19 years, 07 months and 10 days of service with the petitioners-Union of India. It is also a conceded fact that thereafter, the respondent No.1 was re-enrolled in Defence Security Corps (DSC) Service on 06.07.2015 and during which he was placed in Low Medical Category “SCHIZOPHERNIA” and invalidated out of service w.e.f. 06.05.2016.

8. 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, both the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are contrary to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in above noted case.

9. 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 o