O&M) M) v. s
Case Details
CWP-5069-2025 025 (O&M); CWP-7786-2025 (O&M); ; CWP-7874-2025 (O&M) +119 117+118+119 Page 1 of 4 IN THE THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB ARH CHANDIGARH NJAB AND HARYANA AT 1. UNION OF IN OF INDIA AND OTHERS CWP-5069-2025 (O&M) M) Vs. s . . . . Petitioners No.3363188-W W EX SEP SWARAN SINGH AN AND ANOTHER 2. **** . . . . Respondents s M) CWP-7786-2025 (O&M) UNION OF IN OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. ners . . . . Petitioners IC-38479A CO COLONEL ASHOK CHAUDHAR DHARY (RETD) AND ANOTHER dents . . . . Respondents 3. **** UNION OF IN OF INDIA AND OTHERS M) CWP-7874-2025 (O&M) Vs. ners . . . . Petitioners No.01462646 E ANOTHER 2646 EX HAV (HONY NB SUB) RAM RAMESH CHAND AND **** Date of Decision: 13. .05.2025 **** dents . . . . Respondents
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HO HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. G HO SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA H.S. GREWAL Ms. Geeta Singhwal, Sr. Panel Cou Present: M for the petitioners in CWP-5069- for el Counsel -2025. **** Mr. Rohit Verma, Sr. Panel Couns M for the petitioners in CWP-7786- for Counsel -2025. unsel Ms. Neha Jain, Sr. Panel Counsel M for the petitioners in CWP-7874- for -2025. **** MOHIT GOYAL 2025.05.21 11:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5069-2025 025 (O&M); CWP-7786-2025 (O&M); ; CWP-7874-2025 (O&M) SANJEEV PR ral) V PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) Page 2 of 4 1. By this c this common order, these writ petitio
Decision
s the petitions are being disposed of as the issue inv ue involved is same. For the sake of b rived ke of brevity, facts are being derived from wri . m writ petition No.CWP-5069-2025. 2. Learned arned counsel appearing for the the the petitioners submits that the disability ability element of disability pension a the sion as rounded off to 50% from the date of R te of Review Medical Board i.e. from 0 from 06.03.2009 was unjustified. 3. We find e find that the Armed Forces Tribunal ment ibunal (AFT) followed the judgment passed by ssed by the Supreme Court in K.J.S. B 011 .S. Buttar vs. Union of India, 2011 STPL (W L (Web) 316 SC, as well as final ju se of final judgment passed in the case of Union o on of India vs. Ram Avtar, Civil Ap on il Appeal No.418/2012 decided on 10.12.20 2.2014, to direct payment of the arre e arrears. 4. We notic e notice that on 06.03.2009, respond d to espondent No.1 was re-assessed to disability ability of 30% with effect from 06.03 was 06.03.2009, whereas the same was required uired to be rounded off in view of the am of the final judgment passed in Ram Avtar (s r (supra). However, the rounding the unding off was not done by the petitione titioners which prompted the concern men oncerned respondents/ex-servicemen to approa approach the Armed Forces Tribunal ( unal (AFT). 5. The AFT e AFT has accordingly passed an bility d an order rounding off disability element o ment of disability pension @50%. 6. Learned arned counsel for the petitioners has in order has informed about an interim order dated 09 ted 09.05.2025 passed in SLP No.21 of o.21084/2025 titled as ‘Union of India an and others vs. Azad Singh, wh t has wherein the Supreme Court has stayed th yed the operation of the directions f years tions for arrears beyond three years MOHIT GOYAL 2025.05.21 11:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5069-2025 025 (O&M); CWP-7786-2025 (O&M); ; CWP-7874-2025 (O&M) Page 3 of 4 before fil fore filing of the application, relying o n the ying on an earlier order passed in the case of se of Union of India through its GT its Secretary and others vs. SGT Girish K sh Kumar and others in Civil , ivil Appeal Nos.6820-6824/2018, wherein erein it was at the behest of the ASG s for ASG who stated that the arrears for the perio period of three years prior to the ginal o the date of filing of the original applicati plication would be paid. 7. The cons e consent of Additional Solicitor Gen law r General cannot be said to be a law laid dow d down by the Apex Court for paym three payment of arrears for only three years pri ars prior to filing of application. 8. In our op opinion, liberal interpretation has nd to n has to be given to the laws, and to limit clai it claim only to a period of three years stice. e years would be a travesty of justice. 9. Even in en in Bijender Singh vs. Union of CC of India and others, 2025 SCC Online S ine SC 895, decided on 23.04.2025 fit of 025, while granting the benefit of rounding unding off the disability element of d , the nt of disability pension to 50%, the payment yment has not been restricted to three y three years alone. It held as under: “47. Thus having regard to d to the discussions made above, we are of the considered vi ab d view that the impugned orders of the Tribunal are wholly or olly unsustainable in law. That being the position, impugned or Th ed orders dated 22.01.2018 and 26.02.2016 are hereby set an set aside. Consequently, respondents are directed to grant th res nt the disability element of disability pension to the appellant a disa nt at the rate of 50% with effect from 01.01.1996 onwards for eff s for life. The arrears shall carry interest at the rate of 6% pe ca per annum till payment. The above directions shall be Th be carried out by the respondents within three months from res s from today.” MOHIT GOYAL 2025.05.21 11:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5069-2025 025 (O&M); CWP-7786-2025 (O&M); ; CWP-7874-2025 (O&M) 10. In view view of the aforesaid binding law reme law of precedent of the Supreme Page 4 of 4 Court, w , we are bound to follow the sam efore e same, and the AFT has therefore rightly gr htly granted the benefits of arrears. 11. We also e also notice that once a final judgm the l judgment has been passed by the Supreme preme Court laying down a law, it is India , it is binding on the Union of India to follow follow it for all. We are daily finding e g the ding ex-servicemen approaching the AFTs fo Ts for their rights which stand a final tand already crystallized by final judgmen gments of the Supreme Court. Un eing rt. Unnecessary litigation is being burdened rdened both before the AFT as well a ount well as before this Court on account of insens insensitiveness and an attitude for not reme for not complying with the Supreme Court’s t’s judgments which have attain the attained finality. We deplore the approach proach adopted by the Union of Indi rmy f India towards their own ex-Army personne rsonnels. 12. In view view of aforesaid, present petitions st ions stand dismissed. 13. All pend ll pending applications also stand dispo d disposed of accordingly. (SANJE ANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (H.S. GREWAL) JUDGE 13.05.2025 Mohit goyal 1. Whether 2. Whether ther speaking/reasoned? ther reportable? Yes/No Ye Yes/No Ye MOHIT GOYAL 2025.05.21 11:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document