255 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT UNION OF INDIA SMT. PUSHPA DEVI AND CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE MR Present Mr. for the petitioners * SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA 1. The 05.07.2024 passed by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “the AFT”) preferred by respondent No.1 was allowed in terms of order dated 19.04.2024 passed by the AFT in Union of India India (OA-1429 2. L pension or reservist pension cannot be granted to the person retired long back Another Vs. Supreme Court has held as under: 9. entitled to claim for condonation of shortfall in qualifying service for grant of pension beyond six months and upto 12 months. If the aforesaid power has not been exer authority in proper case then it was within the jurisdiction of the High Court or Tribunal to pass appropriate order directing the IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH UNION OF INDIA V SMT. PUSHPA DEVI AND ANOTHER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Mr. Charanjit Singh Bakhshi, Senior Panel Counsel, for the petitioners-UOI. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) The challenge in the present Writ Petition passed by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, (hereinafter referred to as “the AFT”) preferred by respondent No.1 was allowed in terms of order dated 19.04.2024 passed by the AFT in OA-1409 Union of India relying on Darshan Singh Bal and others 1429-2017) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the invalid pension or reservist pension cannot be granted to the person retired long back. However, we find that in the case of Vs. Surender Singh Parmar ; (2015) 3 SCC 404 Court has held as under:- 9. In view of the aforesaid provision, the respondent is also entitled to claim for condonation of shortfall in qualifying service for grant of pension beyond six months and upto 12 months. If the aforesaid power has not been exer authority in proper case then it was within the jurisdiction of the High Court or Tribunal to pass appropriate order directing the IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-8850-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 7th July, 2025 ..…...Petitioner(s) V/s. .....Respondent(s) SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA , Senior Panel Counsel, Writ Petition is to order dated passed by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, (hereinafter referred to as “the AFT”) whereby the OA preferred by respondent No.1 was allowed in terms of order dated 1409-2021 titled as Sukh Lal Vs. Darshan Singh Bal and others Vs. Union of itioners submits that the invalid pension or reservist pension cannot be granted to the persons, who had in the case of Union of India and (2015) 3 SCC 404, the Hon’ble In view of the aforesaid provision, the respondent is also entitled to claim for condonation of shortfall in qualifying service for grant of pension beyond six months and upto 12 months. If the aforesaid power has not been exercised by the competent authority in proper case then it was within the jurisdiction of the High Court or Tribunal to pass appropriate order directing the SURESH KUMAR 2025.07.11 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-8850-2025 (O&M) authority to condone the shortfall and to grant pension to the eligible person, which has been done in find no ground to interfere with the substantive finding of the Tribunal. However as we find that the respondent was allowed to retire from service on 24th June, 1985 when the instruction dated 14th August, 2001 was not in existenc respondent is entitled for such benefit from such date on which the said instruction came into effect. The Tribunal failed to notice the aforesaid fact but rightly declared that the respondent's shortfall in service stands condoned. In are of the view that it should have been made clear that the respondent shall be entitled to benefit w.e.f. 14th August, 2001 and not prior to the said date. The order passed by the Tribunal stands modified to the extent above. Th of with aforesaid observations. 3. In view of the above and considering followed its earlier judgment warranted. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is 4. All pen accordingly. July 7, 2025 Ess Kay Whether speaking / reasoned Whether Reportable 2025 (O&M) p. 2 authority to condone the shortfall and to grant pension to the eligible person, which has been done in find no ground to interfere with the substantive finding of the Tribunal. However as we find that the respondent was allowed to retire from service on 24th June, 1985 when the instruction dated 14th August, 2001 was not in existenc respondent is entitled for such benefit from such date on which the said instruction came into effect. The Tribunal failed to notice the aforesaid fact but rightly declared that the respondent's shortfall in service stands condoned. In are of the view that it should have been made clear that the respondent shall be entitled to benefit w.e.f. 14th August, 2001 and not prior to the said date. The order passed by the Tribunal stands modified to the extent above. Th of with aforesaid observations.” In view of the above and considering followed its earlier judgment, no interference in the present Writ Petition is warranted. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed All pending applications in this case [SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA [MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Whether speaking / reasoned : Whether Reportable : authority to condone the shortfall and to grant pension to the eligible person, which has been done in the present case and we find no ground to interfere with the substantive finding of the Tribunal. However as we find that the respondent was allowed to retire from service on 24th June, 1985 when the instruction dated 14th August, 2001 was not in existence, we hold that the respondent is entitled for such benefit from such date on which the said instruction came into effect. The Tribunal failed to notice the aforesaid fact but rightly declared that the respondent's shortfall in service stands condoned. In the facts of the case, we are of the view that it should have been made clear that the respondent shall be entitled to benefit w.e.f. 14th August, 2001 and not prior to the said date. The order passed by the Tribunal stands modified to the extent above. The appeal stands disposed In view of the above and considering that the AFT has , no interference in the present Writ Petition is dismissed. ding applications in this case are disposed of SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA] JUDGE : Yes / No : Yes / No SURESH KUMAR 2025.07.11 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document