17.07.2025 UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. ROSHAN LAL AND ANOTHER ROSHAN LAL AND ANOTHER
Case Details
2025 CWP-10037-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 137 2025 CWP-10037-2025 DATE OF DECISION: 17.07.2025 DATE OF DECISION: 17.07.2025 UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS … Petitioner (s) Versus ROSHAN LAL AND ANOTHER ROSHAN LAL AND ANOTHER ... Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Ms. Shalini Atri, Senior Panel counsel for UOI/petitioner(s). Present: Ms. Shalini Atri, Senior Panel counsel for UOI/petitioner(s). Ms. Shalini Atri, Senior Panel counsel for UOI/petitioner(s). ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) The petitioners have impugned the order dated 09.02.2022 The petitioners have impugned the order dated 09.02.2022 The petitioners have impugned the order dated 09.02.2022 The petitioners have impugned the order dated 09.02.2022 (Annexure P-1) pas passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, No. 3291 sed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, whereby O.A. No. 3291 of 2018, preferred by respondent No.1
Decision
disposed of with a direction to the preferred by respondent No.1, was disposed of with a direction to the disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to decide the case of respondent No.1 in accordance with the petitioners to decide the case of respondent No.1 in accordance with the petitioners to decide the case of respondent No.1 in accordance with the petitioners to decide the case of respondent No.1 in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of judgment of the Supreme Court Union of India and in the case of Union of India and Another vs. Surender Singh Parmar Surender Singh Parmar, (2015) 3 SCC 404 , (2015) 3 SCC 404. 2. the petitioners submits that respondent no.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent no.1 the petitioners submits that respondent no.1 Learned counsel for is distinguishable on facts had voluntarily retired on 05.07.1967 and his case is distinguishable on facts had voluntarily retired on 05.07.1967 and his case had voluntarily retired on 05.07.1967 and his case from the Union of India and Union of India and Another vs. Surender Singh Parmar (supra) s. Surender Singh Parmar (supra). 3. 4. Heard. Heard. Respondent No.1 was enrolled espondent No.1 was enrolled was enrolled in in in the Indian Army w.e.f. the Indian Army w.e.f. the Indian Army w.e.f. 05.05.1953. He had sought voluntary retirement 05.05.1953. He after putting 14 years, 02 retirement after putting 14 years, 02 months and 02 days of service, which was granted w.e.f. 05.07.1967 months and 02 days of service It is not in granted w.e.f. 05.07.1967. It is not in dispute that he had been denied pension on the ground that the minimum e had been denied service pension on the ground that the minimum pension on the ground that the minimum SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.07.18 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 2025 CWP-10037-2025 qualifying service to be eligible for grant of pension is 15 years. qualifying service He preferred pension is 15 years. He preferred O.A. No. 3291 of 2018 seeking inter-alia grant of pensio O.A. No. 3291 of 2018 seeking n w.e.f. 05.07.1967 by grant of pension w.e.f. 05.07.1967 by condoning the shortfall of about 9 months and 29 days of service. The Tribunal condoning the shortfall of about 9 months and 29 days of service. The Tribunal condoning the shortfall of about 9 months and 29 days of service. The Tribunal condoning the shortfall of about 9 months and 29 days of service. The Tribunal had disposed of the application by directing the present petitioners to decide his had disposed of the application by directing the present petitioners to decide his had disposed of the application by directing the present petitioners to decide his had disposed of the application by directing the present petitioners to decide his Union case in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of Union case in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case o case in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case o