149 SANJEEV SINGH UNION OF CORAM: Present: HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) 1. 27.08.2012 (Annexure P Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), by which, the petitioner has of service pension equivalent to one ye 2. 3. notice on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 4. the present petition with regard to the grant of benefit of condonation of service so as to consider the service of the minimum of 15 years required for the grant of disability pension including the family pension and thereafter, service pension as the case may be, has already been decided by IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.22021 of 2026 Date of Decision : SANJEEV SINGH VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Ms. Roopan Atwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Bharat Bhushan Sharma, Senior Panel Counsel For the respondent Nos.1 to 4 HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) In the present petition, challenge is to the impugned order dated 27.08.2012 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No.1 Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), by which, the petitioner has not of service pension by the Tribunal due to the equivalent to one year and 113 days. Notice of motion. Mr. Bharat Bhushan Sharma, Senior Panel Counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 Learned counsel for the parties submit that the issue raised in the present petition with regard to the grant of benefit of condonation of service so as to consider the service of the minimum of 15 years which is a requisite qual required for the grant of disability pension including the family pension and thereafter, service pension as the case may be, has already been decided by IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.22021 of 2026 (O&M) Date of Decision : 20.07.2026 ........Petitioner VERSUS ........Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL s. Roopan Atwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Bharat Bhushan Sharma, Senior Panel Counsel For the respondent Nos.1 to 4-Union of India. HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) In the present petition, challenge is to the impugned order dated 1) passed by the respondent No.1-Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as not been held entitled for the grant by the Tribunal due to the deficiency of qualifying service Mr. Bharat Bhushan Sharma, Senior Panel Counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 4-Union of India. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the issue raised in the present petition with regard to the grant of benefit of condonation of service so as to consider the service of the appellant concerned to the which is a requisite qualifying service for pension, required for the grant of disability pension including the family pension and thereafter, service pension as the case may be, has already been decided by In the present petition, challenge is to the impugned order dated Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as been held entitled for the grant service Mr. Bharat Bhushan Sharma, Senior Panel Counsel accepts Learned counsel for the parties submit that the issue raised in the present petition with regard to the grant of benefit of condonation of concerned to the ifying service for pension, is required for the grant of disability pension including the family pension and thereafter, service pension as the case may be, has already been decided by SAPNA GOYAL 2026.07.23 13:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9390-2026 (O&M) -2- the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India while passing judgment in Union of India and others Versus Balakrishnan Mullikote (Ex.HAV 256812 M) Civil Appeal arising out of Diary No.27446 of 2023, decided on 24.03.2026. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file with their able assistance. 6. Keeping in view the facts mentioned hereinbefore that issue raised in this petition is covered by the judgment in Balakrishnan Mullikote’s case (supra), the present petition is also disposed of in the same terms and conditions as held in Balakrishnan Mullikote’s case (supra) and the respondents are directed to pass an appropriate order with regard to the claim of petitioner for the grant of service pension as per the judgment passed by Balakrishnan Mullikote’s case (supra). 7. Let the present order be complied with by the respondents within the period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 8. It is made clear that in case, any order passed by the respondents is contrary to the observations given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Balakrishnan Mullikote’s case (supra), the same will not only be treated perverse to the settled principle of law but will also amount to the contempt of the Court. 9. Miscellaneous application pending, if any, is also disposed of. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE 20-07-2026 Sapna Goyal (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/ reasoned: YES Whether reportable: NO SAPNA GOYAL 2026.07.23 13:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document