THE UNION OF INDIA v. NO 13810040 EX. SEP (RESERVIST) OM PRAKASH SON OF SHRI BHOLA RAM
CW/8764/2024 · 2025-09-10
Sanjeet Purohit, Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 39411 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 39411 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:36460-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8764/2024
1. The Union of India, Through The Secretary To The Government of India, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi.
2. PCDA (Pension), Allahabad (U.P).
3. The OIC Records, ASC Records (South) PIN-900493 C/o 56 APO. ----Petitioners/Non-Applicants Versus No. 13810040 Ex. Sep (Reservist) Om Prakash Son of Shri Bhola Ram, Aged About 78 Years, Resident of Village & Post Makrana, Tehsil Mahendragarh, District Bhiwani (Haryana), At Present Resident of H. No. 162, Krishna Marg, Prem Nagar, Jhotwara, Jaipur-302012. ----Respondent/Applicant For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Manjeet Kaur HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 10/09/2025
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:36460-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-8764/2024] 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.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J Amit/Ritu/44