PURAN SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA TH ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
RP/42/2025 · 2025-09-22
Sanjay Parihar, Sanjeev Kumar
Writ Petition (Civil)body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 10876 (JK) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 10876 (JK) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
RP No. 42/2025 in WP(C) No. 453/2025
Puran Singh .....Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through :- Mr. Rupak Ratta, Advocate
v/s Union of India .....Respondent(s)
Through :- Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI with Mr. Eishaan Dadhichi, CGSC
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
ORDER 22.09.2025
1. Through the medium of this petition, the petitioner seeks review of the
judgment dated 26.08.2025, passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 453/2025, titled “Puran Singh v. Union of India and others”, whereby this Court, while allowing the writ petition filed by the petitioner, modified the judgment passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal only to the extent that the petitioner was held entitled to arrears of disability element of pension to a period of three years preceding the date of filing of T.A. The present review petition has been filed on the ground that certain judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which according to the petitioner are relevant to the issue, were not taken note of while passing of the judgment.
2. Having heard learned counsel for the review petitioner and perused the material available on record, we are of the considered opinion that there is no error apparent on the face of record pointed out or demonstrated in the review petition. We have consistently followed the law laid down in “Shiv Dass v. Union of India and others, (2007) 9 SCC 274”, in which, it is
Sr. No. 1
2
categorically held that in case the retired person comes to the Court for raising the issue of pension or disability pension after inordinate delay, the petition may be entertained, but the arrears payable should be restricted to three years immediately preceding the date of filing of the petition before the competent court.
3. For the foregoing reasons, we find not merit in this petition and same is accordingly dismissed.
(SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE
JAMMU 22.09.2025 Vishal Khajuria