O&M) RAMESH KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 125+247 125-12 Decided on : 27.08.2025 CWP-3586-2025 (O&M) MALKIT SINGH Versus . .Petitioner UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS . . . Respondents CWP-3651-2025 (O&M) Mohan SINGH Versus . .Petitioner UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS . . . Respondents CWP-6253-2025 (O&M) RAM KUMAR Versus . .Petitioner UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS . . . Respondents CWP-8502-2025 (O&M) RAJESH KUMAR Versus . .Petitioner UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS . . . Respondents RIYA 2025.09.01 11:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3586-2025 (O&M) and connected case -2- CWP-8515-2025 (O&M) TEJA SINGH Versus . .Petitioner UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS . . . Respondents CWP-8527-2025 (O&M) MOOL RAJ Versus . .Petitioner UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS . . . Respondents CWP-8862-2025 (O&M) TARA SINGH Versus . .Petitioner UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS . . . Respondents CWP-8959-2025 (O&M) CHANCHAL DEVI Versus .Petitioner UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS . . . Respondents CWP-13753-2025 (O&M) RANDHIR Versus .Petitioner UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS . . . Respondents CWP-13929-2025 (O&M) DAYANAND MEHLA Versus .Petitioner RIYA 2025.09.01 11:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3586-2025 (O&M) and connected case -3- UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS . . . Respondents CWP-13932-2025 (O&M) CHANDER BHAN Versus .Petitioner UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS . . . Respondents CWP-4315-2025 (O&M) BRIJESH Versus .Petitioner UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS . . . Respondents 247-3 CWP-550-2025 (O&M) HARJINDER SINGH Versus .Petitioner UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS . . . Respondents CWP-4302-2025 (O&M) BALJEET SINGH Versus .Petitioner UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS . . . Respondents CWP-12310-2025 (O&M) RAMESH KUMAR .Petitioner Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS . . . Respondents
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI RIYA 2025.09.01 11:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3586-2025 (O&M) and connected case -4- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI PRESENT: Mr. Arshit Goel, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP-12310, 13929, 13932 of 2025. Mr. B. S. Khaira, Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents-UOI in CWP-8515-2025 Mr. Tarun Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-6253-2025. Mr. Satyapal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India with Ms. Bhavana Datta, Senior Panel Counsel- UOI. Ms. Bhavana Datta, Senior Panel Counsel- UOI. Ms. Neha Jain, Senior Panel Counsel- UOI in CWP-3582, 4315 of 2025 Ms. Geeta Singwal, Senior Panel Counsel in CWP-8527-2025. Mr. Karan Kumar Jund, Senior Panel Counsel-UOI in CWP-8862-2025. Mr. Rohit Verma, Senior Panel Counsel in CWP-550, 4302, 12310 of 2025. **** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral) 1. Present bunch of petitions, the details of which are mentioned in the heading, involve common point of law and common set of facts, hence, they are being dealt together. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from CWP No.3586 of 2025. 2. In the present petition, the prayer of the petitioner is for implementation of the order dated 06.03.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No. 5-Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (herein after referred to Tribunal), by which, the petitioner has been granted the benefit of disability pension by rounding of his disability element from 30 % to 50 % in view the settled principle of law settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India and others versus Ram Avtar, RIYA 2025.09.01 11:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3586-2025 (O&M) and connected case -5- 2014 SCC ONLINE, SC 1761, 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the relief has been granted to the petitioner by the Tribunal but the same has not been implemented qua the petitioner by the Tribunal so far and that too without any valid justification and even the execution petitions have also been filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal for implementation of the same but the same are being adjourned continuously and no effective relief is being granted to the petitioner despite the fact that there is no hindrance for implementation of the order dated 06.03.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Tribunal in favour of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner will be satisfied at this stage in case, an appropriate direction be given to the respondents to implement the said order passed by the Tribunal where there is no impediment so that the officers who have served the Nation during their life time are liable of the relief which has been given to them by the competent Court of law during their life time so that they can avail the same during their lifetime. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents- UOI submits that all the efforts will be made by the authorities concerned to implement the orders passed by the Tribunal as early as possible so as to give the necessary relief to the petitioners whose claim has been allowed by the Tribunal. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file with their able assistance. 7. It may be noticed that after hearing the parties, as it is undisputed that the claim has been allowed in favour of the petitioner by the Competent Court of law and there is no impediment qua implementation of RIYA 2025.09.01 11:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3586-2025 (O&M) and connected case -6- the same, hence, it is directed to the authorities concerned which is supposed to implement the order passed by the Tribunal in favour of the petitioner, will implement the same within the period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order in case there is no impediment. 7. It is made clear that in case, the said order passed by the Tribunal in favour of the petitioner is not implemented by the authorities concerned in case there is no impediment within the prescribed time then the strict view will be taken by this Court without any compassion for non- implementation of the same by the authorities concerned so that a soldier who has served the Nation and has been allowed a certain relief, should be able to get the benefit of said relief as early as possible so as to live a dignified life ahead. 8. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that one of the soldiers is 85 years old is still looking forward for the implementation of the relief granted by the competent Court of law despite there being no impediment for the implementation of the same. 9. Further it may be noticed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while passing order in Special Leave To appeal (C) No. 19654 of 2022 titled as Bhoj Raj Garg versus Goyal Education and Welfare Society and others’ decided on 18.11.2022 has held that where the execution petitions are pending, the competent court of law directed to decide the said execution petitions within the period of six months from the date of filing the said execution petition. 10. The similar judgment passed in case of Periyammal (Dead) and others versus V. Rajamani and Another, 2025 INSC 329 it has been again reiterated by this Court while passing the order dated 05.04.2025, RIYA 2025.09.01 11:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3586-2025 (O&M) and connected case -7- Hence, the tribunal is requested to follow such direction as being issued by Hon’ble supreme Court of India in aforesaid judgments while dealing with the execution petition. The present petitions are disposed of in above terms. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected 11. 12. case. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE ( VIKAS SURI ) JUDGE 27.08.2025 Riya Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether Reportable: Yes/No Yes/No RIYA 2025.09.01 11:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document