117 UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS SUBEDAR DESH RAJ CORAM: Present: HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) 1. 22.03.2022 (Annexure P Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), by which, the respondent has been held entitled for the gr service pension after condoning the and 65 days. 2. the present petition with regard to the grant of benefit of condonation of service so as to consider the service of the officer concerned to the minimum of 15 years, which is pension, disabilit has already been decided by the passing judgment in Mullikote (Ex.HAV 256812 M) Civil Appeal arising out of Diary No.27446 of 2023, decided on 24.03.2026. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-12563 Date of Decision : UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS VERSUS SUBEDAR DESH RAJ CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Mr. N.K Verma, Advocate for the HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) In the present petition, challenge is to the impugned order dated 22.03.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No.1 Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), by which, the respondent has been held entitled for the gr service pension after condoning the shortfall days. Learned counsel for the petitioner the present petition with regard to the grant of benefit of condonation of o as to consider the service of the officer concerned to the minimum of 15 years, which is the qualifying service disability pension including the family has already been decided by 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. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 12563-2026 Date of Decision : 24.04.2026 ........Petitioners VERSUS ........Respondent HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI DEEPAK MANCHANDA Advocate for the petitioners. HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) 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 ‘Tribunal’), by which, the respondent has been held entitled for the grant of shortfall of service equivalent to 01 year petitioner submit that the issue raised in the present petition with regard to the grant of benefit of condonation of o as to consider the service of the officer concerned to the minimum the qualifying service required for the grant of service y pension including the family pension as the case may be, Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India while Union of India and others Versus Balakrishnan Mullikote (Ex.HAV 256812 M) Civil Appeal arising out of Diary No.27446 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI petition, challenge is to the impugned order dated Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ant of of service equivalent to 01 year submit that the issue raised in the present petition with regard to the grant of benefit of condonation of o as to consider the service of the officer concerned to the minimum service pension as the case may be, Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India while Union of India and others Versus Balakrishnan Mullikote (Ex.HAV 256812 M) Civil Appeal arising out of Diary No.27446 SAPNA GOYAL 2026.04.27 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12563-2026 -2- 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the case file with hi able assistance. 4. 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 dismissed in the same terms and conditions as held in Balakrishnan Mullikote’s case (supra). (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE 24-04-2026 Sapna Goyal (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/ reasoned: YES Whether reportable: NO SAPNA GOYAL 2026.04.27 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document