CWP-35304-202 IN THE HIGH CO 125 UNION OF INDI No.18001817, EX CORAM: HON HON Present: Mr.V ANUPINDER SIN The (Annexure P-1) wh off, of the disabilit Learn not challenging the the respondent No element as respond discharged where personnel) for pen referred to Regula minimum qualifyin He has relied upo Singh Vs. Union o Heard The r Sepoy. He was d Medical Board ha was deemed to ha Tribunal-responde in the case of 2024 H COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARY CWP-35304-202 DATE OF DECIS INDIA AND ORS. Versus 7, EX. SPR. LAKHDEV SINGH AN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPIN HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPAK Varun Veer Chauhan, Advocate fo **** R SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) The petitioners have challenged whereby the respondent No.1 has b isability element of disability pension Learned counsel for the petitioners s ing the judgment with regard to the fi No.1 to disability pension but th espondent No.1 had put in only 5 year whereas the requisite service, whi or pension, is 15 years. Learned coun egulation 132 of the Pension Regula alifying period for earning pension h d upon the judgment of the Supreme nion of India and others, (2010) 15 S Heard. The respondent No.1 is stated to hav was discharged from service as he ard had assessed disability of the resp to have been aggravated by militar pondent No.2 had relied upon the judg of Mahavir Singh Narwal Vs. U 1 ARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 2024 ECISION: 14.01.2025 … Petitioner (s) H AND ANOTHER ... Respondent(s) UPINDER SINGH GREWAL EPAK MANCHANDA cate for the petitioner(s). nged the order dated 27.07.2017 has been held eligible for rounding nsion to 50% as against 20%. ners submits that the petitioners are the finding about the entitlement of but they are disputing the service 5 years of service when he had been which entitles Sepoy (an army counsel for the petitioners has also egulations for Army, 1961 wherein sion has been set out to be 15 years. preme Court in the case of ‘Bhola 0) 15 SCC 126. to have served the Indian Army as a as he had suffered disability. The he respondent at 20% for life which military service. The Armed Forces he judgment of the Delhi High Court Vs. Union of India, 2004, SCC 1 17 ding s are nt of rvice been army also erein ears. hola as a The hich orces ourt SCC SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.01.22 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-35304-2024 2 OnlineDel 348 wherein the Delhi High Court had held that disability pension cannot be denied on the ground that the petitioner therein was discharged from service on the compassionate grounds. This judgment had been affirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.24171 of 2004, Union of India Vs. Mahavir Singh Narwal, decided on 04.01.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to Regulation 132 of the Pension Regulations for Army, 1961 wherein minimum qualifying period for earning pension has been set out to be 15 years. However, these Regulations would not be applicable in the case of respondent No.1 for the reason that he had been discharged from service on account of his disability. Learned counsel has not been able to point out any pension regulation which stipulates a minimum number of years of service for an employee, who has been discharged on account of disability, to be eligible for disability pension. There is no dispute that the respondent No.1 had suffered disability while in service, which was aggravated due to his military service. The respondent No.1 had served Indian Army for over 5 years and was entitled to the benefits including disability pension in that regard. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. V.R. Nanakuttan Nair, (2019) 19 SCC 690, wherein it has been held that plain reading of Regulations does not infer that service element should be limited to individual who has completed minimum 15 years of engagement. The relevant pargraphs of the judgment are reproduced hereunder: “xxxx 20. In view of the principles of interpretation relating to casus omissus, we find that a reading of the Regulations does not lead to an inference that the service element should be limited to an individual who has completed minimum 15 years of engagement. Regulation 78 cannot be read into Regulation 105-B when no such qualification is provided in Regulation 105-B. 21. Still further, Regulation 107 providing service element in the event of an individual who has not completed the qualifying service will become otiose. A reading of all the regulations harmoniously and keeping in view the object of grant of disability pension, we find that the interpretation which advances the object and purpose of the grant of disability needs to be accepted being a beneficial provision for a class of individuals who have suffered disability in the course of duty. xxxxx” SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.01.22 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-35304-2024 3 The judgment of Bhola Singh Vs. Union of India and others (supra) referred by learned counsel for the petitioners has been distinguished by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. V.R. Nanakuttan Nair (supra) wherein the Supreme Court, while dismissing the appeal preferred by the Union of India, had observed that since the Supreme Court had earlier not referred to the Regulations 105-B and 107, therefore, the reliance placed on the judgment without referring the statutory regulations would not be of any help to appellants therein. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced hereunder: “xxxxx 23. The learned counsel for the appellants refers to an order passed by this Court in Bhola Singh v. Union of India15. We find that this Court has not referred to Regulation 105-B as well as Regulation 107 of the Regulations to maintain an order of the High Court to deny service element of pension to an individual who has completed the initial fixed period of 10 years. Since the appeal has been decided without any reference to statutory regulations, we find that the reliance of the appellants on the said order is not helpful to the arguments advanced. xxxx” Consequently, the petition stands dismissed. (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE 14.01.2025 SwarnjitS Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.01.22 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document