IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision :10.04.2026 Union of India and others ..Petitioners Versus Ex. Rect. Rakesh Kumar and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Ms. Neha Jain, Senior Panel Counsel for the petitioners-UOI.

* * *

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 24.02.2023 (Annexure P-4) 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. 09.09.2014 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 ‘Knock Knee’ 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’ hence, the grant of benefit of invalid pension to respondent No. 1 by placing reliance upon the judgment passed by the three Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (s)-20330/2011 titled as Union of India and others versus P. A. Thomas is incorrect.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that once, the report of the Medical Board clearly states that the disability of respondent No.1 is neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, the grant of benefit of invalid pension to respondent No. 1 is incorrect, and the facts and circumstances in the present case has not been appreciated in correct aspect by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order dated

24.02.2023 (Annexure P-4).

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 09.09.2014 on medical grounds, he had already rendered 09 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. 30.12.2013 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 (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 that a Government servant, who retires from service on account of any bodily or mental infirmity which permanently incapacitates him for the service before completing qualifying service of ten years, may also be grante