HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU (Through Virtual Mode from Srinagar) WP(C) No. 1721/2025 CM No. 3913/2025 Reserved on 08.07.2025 Pronounced on 30.08.2025 Union of India and others …. Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through:- Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI. V/s Rakesh Kumar …..Respondent(s) Through:- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE JUDGMENT Per : Sindhu Sharma-J 01. The petitioners, by way of the present writ petition, seek quashing of the order dated 07.09.2022 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Srinagar Bench at Jammu, in O.A. No. 211/2020, titled “No. 12880383 N Ex. Rfn. Rakesh Kumar vs. Union of India and others”. 02. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent was initially enrolled in the Army (J&K Light Infantry) on 14.08.1995 and was discharged from service on 31.08.2012 after rendering qualifying service and was, accordingly, granted service pension for the service rendered. 03. Thereafter, the respondent was re-enrolled in 129 Infantry Battalion (Territorial Army) Ecological on 20.02.2013. While serving in this unit, the respondent was brought before a duly constituted Release Medical Board (RMB), which diagnosed him with “Left Inguinal Hernia (OPTRDI) (K-40)”. His disability was assessed at 20% for life, and it was held to be aggravated by military service. Page 2 of 5 04. The respondent was discharged from service on 16.02.2016. He submitted a representation/appeal dated 29.10.2018 seeking grant of disability pension. His claim was, however, rejected on the ground that personnel enrolled in Territorial Army (Ecological) units are not entitled to disability pension benefits, as clarified by a communication dated 30.10.2018. The said policy communication was relied upon by the authorities to deny his claim. 05. Aggrieved by the rejection, the respondent filed Original Application No. 211/2020 before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Srinagar Bench at Jammu seeking setting aside of order dated 08.06.2017 denying disability pension to him and further grant of disability pension and consequential benefits. 06. The Tribunal accordingly allowed the application, quashed the impugned rejection order, and directed the authorities to grant disability pension to the respondent w.e.f. 16.02.2016, along with arrears. The Tribunal also ordered payment of interest at the rate of 8% per annum in case of default beyond three months. 07. The petitioners are aggrieved of the impugned judgment of the Tribunal on the ground that as per Add DTC Gen TA Army HQ Letter dated 12.11.1982 and 06.05.1994, ex-servicemen enrolled in the TA Army are not entitled to any enhanced pensionary benefit. It is also further clarified in Letter dated 27.08.2003 that ex-servicemen employed with the Unit are on contractual basis and no agreement has been signed by MOEF to grant service pension to the re-enrolled ex-servicemen for service rendered in TA. Hence the respondent is not entitled to disability element of disability pension. 08. The Tribunal while relying upon Regulation 292 of the Pension Regulation for the Army, 1961 (Part-1) observed that stand of the petitioners that a solider enrolled in TA(Ecological) is not entitled to the disability pension is contrary to Regulation 292 and held that respondent is entitled to disability pension. 09. Regulation 292 reads as under:- “292 The grant of pensionary awards to the members of the territorial Army shall be governed by the same general regulations as are applicable to the corresponding personnel of the Army except where they are inconsistent with the provisions of regulations in this Chapter." 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in ‘Pani Ram vs. Union of India and others’, reported as 2021 (9) SCR 1024, considered an identical issue, wherein an ex-serviceman, after receiving service pension from his regular army tenure, was re-enrolled in a Territorial Army (Ecological) unit and was denied disability pension on the ground that such re- enrollees were not entitled to pensionary benefits. The Apex Court, while rejecting this contention, held as under: “14. It could thus be seen that every such officer or enrolled person in Territorial Army when holds the rank, shall be subject to the provisions of Army Act, 1950 and the rules or regulations made thereunder, equivalent to the same rank in the Regular Army. 15. Chapter 5 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 deals with Territorial Army. The Regulation No. 292 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 read thus: “292. The grant of pensionary awards to the members of the Territorial Army shall be governed by the same general regulations as are applicable to the corresponding personnel of the Army except where they are inconsistent with the provisions of regulations in this Chapter” ……………. 20. It is thus clear that the ETF is established as an additional company for 130 Infantry Battalion of Territorial Army. It is not in dispute that the other officers or enrolled persons working in the Territorial Army are entitled to disability pension under Regulation No. 173 read with Regulation No. 292 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961. When the appellant is enrolled as a member of ETF which is a company for 130 Infantry Battalion (Territorial Army), we see no reason as to why the appellant was denied the disability pension. Specifically so, when the Medical Board and COI have found that the injury sustained by the appellant was attributable to the Military Service and it was not due to his own negligence. ……….. Page 4 of 5 22. The respondents have heavily relied on the document dated 30th August 2007, titled “Certificate”. No doubt that the said document is signed by the appellant, wherein he had agreed to the condition that he will not be getting any enhanced pension for having been enrolled in this force. Firstly, we find that the said document deals with enhanced pension and not disability pension. As already discussed hereinabove, a conjoint reading of Section 9 of the Territorial Army Act, 1948 and Regulation Nos. 292 and 173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, would show that a member of the Territorial Army would be entitled to disability pension. In any case, in this respect, even accepting that the appellant has signed such a document, it will be relevant to refer to the following observations of this Court in the case of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited and Another v. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Another1 : “89. ……We have a Constitution for our country. Our judges are bound by their oath to “uphold the Constitution and the laws”. The Constitution was enacted to secure to all the citizens of this country social and economic justice. Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees to all persons equality 1 (1986) 3 SCC 156 before the law and the equal protection of the laws.” 11. In the present case, the respondent was medically boarded out with a 20% disability, assessed by a duly constituted Release Medical Board, and the disability was specifically held to be aggravated by military service. The denial of disability pension on the basis of internal policy letters without any specific statutory exclusion from the Pension Regulations is not sustainable in law, as rightly concluded by the Tribunal. 12. The contention of the petitioners that TA (Ecological) personnel are governed by a different framework has already been dealt with and rejected in Pani Ram (supra). The distinction sought to be drawn between regular TA and ecological TA units does not find support in any binding statutory provision. On the contrary, Regulation 173 applies broadly to all Territorial Army personnel, and no express exclusion has been shown in the present case. 13. This Court, therefore, finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has correctly applied the binding precedent of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pani Ram (supra) and has rendered a well-reasoned decision in consonance with law. Page 5 of 5 14. In view of the foregoing, the writ petition is found to be without merit and is accordingly dismissed. The order dated 07.09.2022 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Srinagar Bench at Jammu in O.A. No. 211/2020 is upheld. (Shahzad Azeem) (Sindhu Sharma) Judge Judge Jammu: 30.08.2025 Michal Sharma/PS