HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU (Through Virtual Mode From Srinagar) WP(C) No. 1848/2024 Reserved on : 06.06.2025 Pronounced on: 30.08.2025 1.Union of India through its Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi-l1OO11. 2.Additional Director General Personnel Services, Adjutant General's Branch, Integrated HQ of Ministry of Defence (army), DHQ PO, New Delhi-11O OO1. 3. Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions), Draupadi Ghat, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh-211014. 4. Records, Records JAK LI, Pin Code- 91LOL7, Clo 56 APO. ….Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through:- Mr. Rohan Nanda, CGSC V/s No 1288O299N Ex Rfn Rash Paul Singh S/o Shri Raja Singh R/o Village Makhan Charkian, post office: Bishnah, Tehsil: Bishnah, District: Jiammu ..…Respondent(s) Through:- Mr. Yogesh Rana, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE JUDGMENT Per : Sindhu Sharma-J 1. Through the medium of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek quashment of order dated 09.03.2022 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal Srinagar, Bench at Jammu ( for short ‘AFT’) in OA 26/2021 titled Rash Paul Singh vs. Union of India and others, by virtue of which the applicant-respondent herein has been held entitled to the grant of disability pension. WP(C) 1848 of 2024 It has been further directed that the due and admissible arrears be calculated and released in favour of the applicant- respondent herein. 2. The facts in brief giving rise to the present appeal are as under: The respondent-Rash Paul Singh was initially enrolled in the Army (JAK Light Infantry Regiment) on 23.12.1979 and discharged on 31.12.2003 after rendering 24 years, eight months and eight days of qualifying service for which he was granted service pension. He was re-enrolled in 129 Infantry Battalion (Territorial Army) Ecological on 01.07.2005 and discharged on 31.12.2015 after rendering 10 years and 05 months of embodied service without any pensionary benefits. Prior to discharge the respondent was brought before the duly constituted Release Medical Board (RMB) wherein he was found to be suffering from "(i) Primary Hypertension (1-10) (ii) Dyslipidemia (E-78) & (iii) Pre-diabetes (Impaired Fasting Glucose (E-Il)" and disablement of which assessed @ 30% , l- 5 % and15-19% respectively. The composite assessment was made @ 40%o for life and conceded the disability (i) & (iii) as aggravated by military service and disability (ii) neither attributable to nor attributable to military service. The respondent claimed disability pension. His claim was rejected by the competent authority, on the ground that the ex-service WP(C) 1848 of 2024 men enrolled in Infantry Battalion (TA) (Ecological) are not entered to any pensionary benefits. 3. Aggrieved, the respondent approached the Armed Forces Tribunal by way of OA No. 26/2021, which stands allowed by the AFT vide order dated 09.03.2022. 4. The claim of the respondent was resisted by the authorities on the ground that a soldier having enrolled in the TA (Ecological) is not entitled for grant of disability pension. Reliance was placed upon a document dated 30.08.2007, signed by the respondent, wherein he had agreed to the condition that he will not be getting any enhanced pension for having been enrolled in this force. The petitioners also placed on record various communications of Government of India and Add. Director General TA, Army in support of their claim that TA (Ecological) Units will not be entitled to any pension. 5. 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. 6. 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." WP(C) 1848 of 2024 7. From a bare perusal of the Regulation aforesaid, it is clear that Members of the Territorial Army will receive pension and related benefits under the same rules as regular Army personnel, unless those rules conflict with the specific Territorial Army regulations in this chapter. As such, the petitioners are not justified in claiming that a solider enrolled in TA(Ecological) is not entitled to the disability pension. Further, Regulation 173 provides that disability pension in normal course is to be granted to an individual: (i) who is invalided out of service on account of a disability which is attributable to or aggravated by military service, and (ii) who is assessed at 20% or over disability unless otherwise it is specifically provided. 8. In the present case, the respondent has been found to be suffering from "(i) Primary Hypertension (1-10) (ii) Dyslipidemia (E-78) & (iii) Pre-diabetes (Impaired Fasting Glucose (E-Il)" and disablement of which assessed @ 30% , l- 5 % and15-19% respectively and the composite assessment was made @ 40% for life. 9. The AFT while granting disability pension to the respondent has rightly observed that law on this point is no longer res- integra as the Supreme Court in case titled Pani Ram vs. Union of India and others, reported as 2021 (9) SCR 1024 as held the appellant a similarly situated solider entitled to the grant of disability pension. In the said case Supreme Court WP(C) 1848 of 2024 has held that Territorial Army members (including ETF) are governed by the same pension rules as regular Army personnel unless explicitly exempted, no exception appeared in the statutory scheme and that an individual invalided from service due to a disability attributable to or aggravated by military service (non-battle casualty) and assessed at 20% or more is entitled to disability pension. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:- ““18. The perusal thereof will reveal that an individual who is invalided out of service on account of disability, which is attributable or aggravated by Military Service in nonbattle casualty and is assessed 20% or more, would be entitled to disability pension. The respondents are not in a position to point out any rules or regulations, which can be said to be inconsistent with Regulation No. 292 or 173, neither has any other regulation been pointed out, which deals with the terms and conditions of service of ETF. 19. The communication of the Union of India dated 31st March 2008, vide which the President of India has granted sanction, itself reveals that the sanction is for raising two additional companies for 130 Infantry Battalion (Territorial Army) Ecological. 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. 21. …... 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 : WP(C) 1848 of 2024 “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 before the law and the equal protection of the laws.” 10. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that no exception can be taken to the decision of the AFT to grant disability pension to the respondent. Accordingly, the order of the Tribunal is upheld. 11. The instant petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (Shahzad Azeem) (Sindhu Sharma) Judge Judge Jammu: 30.08.2025 Bir Whether approved for reporting? Yes/No