Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 37853 (RAJ)

THE UNION OF INDIA v. NO. 2962423 SEP (RESERVIST) BIJAI SINGH S/O SHRI BAHADUR SINGH

CW/8999/2024 · 2025-11-03

Baljinder Singh Sandhu, Sanjeev Prakash Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:44129-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8999/2024 1. The Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Defence, South Block, Government Of India, New Delhi- 110011 2. The Pcda (P), Allahabad (Up)- 211001 3. The Oic Records, Records The Rajput Regiment, Pin- 900427 C/o 56 Apo ----Petitioners Versus 1. No. 2962423 Sep (Reservist) Bijai Singh S/o Shri Bahadur Singh, Aged About 76 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Babasar, Tehsil Sujangarh, Distt. Churu (Raj.). 2. Manager, Bank Of Baroda, Sujangarh, Distt. Churu (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Kamwar, Adv. For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Order 03/11/2025 1. The directions issued by the Armed Forces Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘AFT’) challenged before us is no more res integra in several bunch of cases decided at Principal Seat of AFT as well as before AFT Regional Bench, Jaipur. 2. The provisions of Para 5.2 of letter dated 08.03.2010, issued by the Govt. of India, was upheld and it was settled that benefit of revision of reservist pension is not applicable at par with pre retirees of 01.01.2006, but have been given benefits w.e.f. 01.07.2009, 24.09.2012 and 01.07.2014. It was, however, [2025:RJ-JP:44129-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-8999/2024] decided that 2/3rd of minimum pension of a regular Sepoy in terms of 7th Central Pay Commission Pay Scale, which is applicable w.e.f. 01.01.2016, shall be payable to the reservist. The entitlement is of receiving 2/3rd of minimum pension in light of Para 155 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961. We, therefore, do not find any reason to take a different view. 3. We also noticed that this petition suffers from gross latches and delay, which remains inadequately explained. In “Union of India & Ors. Vs. No 2849994 Rfn (Reservist) Man Singh” (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7831/2025), we have taken a similar view of non interfering with such belated petitions. 4. Accordingly, we dismiss this petition with direction to release the amount as directed by the AFT with interest @ 8% per annum expeditiously not later than one month. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ HEENA/DIKSHA/36