IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision :10.04.2026 Union of India and others ..Petitioners Versus Ex. SWR Manjeet 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, challenge is to the impugned order dated 24.01.2019 (Annexure P-3) 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 disability pension consisting of both disability element as well as service element alongwith benefit of rounding off of the disability element from

40% to 50% w.e.f. 01.09.2010.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that in the present case, respondent No.1 was enrolled in Army on 19.11.2004 and was released from service w.e.f. 31.08.2010 under Rule 13 (3) III (iv) of the Army Rules, 1954 being found to be suffering from disability ‘Tuberculosis pleural effusion (LT) for life. Learned counsel for the petitioners further argues that the respondent No.1 has not completed 15 years of qualifying service, which is an essential condition for the grant of benefit of service element hence, he was not entitled for the grant of service element of disability pension. However, the learned Tribunal while granting the benefit of disability pension to respondent No.1 has also added the service element which is erroneous. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that service element of disability pension is equivalent to service pension for which 15 years qualifying service is mandatory as per the provisions of Rule 132 of Pension Regulations for the Army 1961.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further argues that even otherwise, when respondent No. 1 was released from service, though, it was held by medical board that the disease suffered by respondent no.1 is attributable to the military service and the disability of respondent No.1 was assessed at 40% for life but the disability pension has already been given to him, hence, revising of the same by adding service element is incorrect.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that while passing the impugned order dated 24.01.2019 (Annexure P-3), the Tribunal has ignored the factum that minimum service of 15 years is required for getting the benefit of service pension, which is missing in the present case.

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

6. It may be noticed that the disability pension including the “service element” is to be given under Regulations 183 of the Pension Regulation for the Army, 1961 which provision has been interpreted more than once not only by this Court but also by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and it has been categorically held that the “service element” has no relation with “service pension” and the disability pension is to be calculated only by taking into consideration the “service element”.

9. It may be further noticed that the Union of India has raised the claim that the officer concerned did not had 15 years service in his credit to get the benefit of service element while fixing the disability pension, but, the said question of law is no longer res integra as, the same has already been decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 4714-4715 of 2012 titled as Union of India and others versus V. R. Nanukuttan Nair, decided on 07.11.2019 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was dealing with the similar service regulations of Navy. The regulation 107 of the Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964 which was mentioned in the said judgment is the pari materia to the service regulation No.183 of the Pension Regulation for the Army Act, 1961, which is applicable in the present case.

10. After considering the said regulations, the fin