Sr. No. 21 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case: WP(C) No. 1179/2024 1.Union of India through its Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi -11OO11. 2. The Chief of Army Staff, Integrated Headquarters of Ministry of Defence (Army), Adjutant General’s Branch, Additional Directorate General personnel services, DHQ, PO, New Delhi - 110011. 3. The Principal controller Defence Accounts (pension) Grant Section, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh. 4. The Record officer, DSC, Mil Road, Kannur (Kerala) ….Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through:- Mr. R. S. Jamwal, CGSC V/s No 9O84118-X Ex Sep Bansi Lal S/o Late Sh.Thakur Dass R/o Village Balmandir, PO Kunguadi Palmar, Tehsil Kishtwar, Kishtwar (J&K)Record Office - DSC. …..Respondent(s) Through:-Mr. Sanjog Khatri, Advocate Mr. Chakshu Sharma, Advocate (through virtual mode) CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE ORDER 29.10.2025 1. Through the medium of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek quashment of order dated 29.01.2020, passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Srinagar Bench at Jammu (for short, “AFT”) in O.A. No. 439/2019, titled No. 9084118-X Ex Sep Bansi Lal v. Union of India & Ors., whereby the petitioners have been directed to calculate and release the arrears of service element of disability pension to the respondent along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the order. 2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are briefly noticed herein. The respondent was enrolled in the Army on 23.02.1981 and was discharged on 28.02.2007 in the rank of Havaldar on completion of his terms of engagement, drawing service pension for the said spell of service. Thereafter, he was enrolled in the Defence Security Corps (DSC) on 13.09.2007 in the rank of Sepoy and was discharged w.e.f. 30.09.2017. The respondent was granted the disability element with the benefit of rounding-off @ 75% against 60% from the date of his discharge. His request before the authorities for grant of the service element of disability pension was declined vide order dated 15.02.2019. 3. Aggrieved thereof, the respondent approached the AFT seeking quashment of the order dated 15.02.2019 and a direction for grant of service element of disability pension for his DSC service w.e.f. 01.10.2017. 4. The stand of the petitioners before the AFT was that the respondent’s engagement with the DSC was on fixed contractual terms, initially for five years, later extended by another five years. Upon completion of the contractual tenure of ten years, he was validly discharged and was not invalided out on medical grounds. Therefore, he was not entitled to the service element of disability pension. It was further contended that as the respondent was already drawing service pension for his earlier Army service, he was eligible only for the disability element, not the service element, in the DSC tenure. 5. The issue before the AFT was whether a person already receiving Army pension at the time of re-enrolment in the DSC is entitled to the service element of disability pension on discharge from DSC service. The AFT observed that the respondent was in Low Medical Category at the time of discharge and could not be granted further extension for this reason, thereby deeming his discharge as an invaliding discharge. As he was suffering from a disability assessed at 60%, the AFT held that under Regulation 179 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, he was entitled to both the service element and the disability element of disability pension. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends before this Court that the service element of disability pension is equivalent to service pension, for which 15 years of qualifying service is mandatory under Rule 132 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part-I), as revised by Rule 47 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008 (Part-I). It is argued that the respondent had neither rendered 15 years of qualifying service in DSC nor had he been invalided out before completion of his contractual tenure, therefore, he is not entitled to the service element. 7. The issue raised in this petition stands squarely covered by the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C) No. 890/2024, Union of India & Ors. v. Rachpal Singh, decided on 02.04.2025, wherein the following two issues were framed for consideration: (i) Whether the Pension Regulations of 1961 stand superseded and replaced by the Pension Regulations of 2008; and (ii) Whether the case of the respondent is governed by the Pension Regulations of 1961, which were applicable at the time of his employment with the DSC, or by the Pension Regulations of 2008, which were in force at the time of his discharge. 8. The Division Bench, in the aforesaid case, held that Regulation 52 of the Pension Regulations, 2008 has substantially altered the position concerning entitlement of DSC personnel to the service element of disability pension, as compared to the 1961 Regulations. After analysing both sets of Regulations, the matter was remanded to the AFT for fresh consideration. 9. As the controversy involved in the present petition is identical to the one adjudicated in Rachpal Singh’s case (supra), learned counsel for both parties fairly submit that the present matter also be decided in the same manner. 10. In view of the above, the present matter is remanded to the Armed Forces Tribunal, Srinagar Bench at Jammu, for fresh consideration. While reconsidering the case, the AFT shall specifically address and determine the two questions noted hereinabove. 11. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. 12. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Armed Forces Tribunal, Srinagar Bench at Jammu, for information and compliance. (Shahzad Azeem) (Sindhu Sharma) Judge Judge Jammu: 29.10.2025 Bir*