Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 41945 (RAJ)

UNION OF INDIA v. ARMY NO. 3158299 EX-RESERVIST (SEPOY) PREMA RAM S/O LATE SHRI BODU RAM

CW/8998/2024 · 2025-10-09

Baljinder Singh Sandhu, Sanjeev Prakash Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:41157-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8998/2024 1. Union Of India, (Through Its Secretary), Ministry Of Defence, New Delhi-11 2. The Pcda (Pensions), Draupadighat, Allahabad (Up)- 211014 3. The Officer-In-Charge Records, Records The Jat Regiment, Bareilly, U.p. 243001 ----Petitioners Versus Army No. 3158299 Ex-Reservist (Sepoy) Prema Ram S/o Late Shri Bodu Ram, Aged About 73 Years, Resident Of Village And Po-Ambapa, Tehsil- Didwana, District Nagaur, State-Rajasthan. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Kamwar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tansukh Rai HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Order 09/10/2025 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, 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 [2025:RJ-JP:41157-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-8998/2024] 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 DANISH USMANI /45