UNION OF INDIA v. NO. 1165085 EX GNR (GD) (RESERVIST) KANA RAM S/O LATE SH LALA RAM
CW/9476/2024 · 2025-11-11
Baljinder Singh Sandhu, Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 43235 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 43235 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:45313-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9476/2024
1. Union Of India, (Through Its Secretary), Ministry Of Defence South Block, Government Of India, New Delhi- 110011
2. The PCDA (P), Allahabad (UP)- 211001
3. The OIC Records, Records Artillery Nasik Road Camp (Mah) C/o 56 Apo ----Petitioners Versus No. 1165085 Ex Gnr (Gd) (Reservist) Kana Ram S/o Late Sh Lala Ram Father/o Late Sh Lala Ram, Aged About 84 Years, R/o Village And Post Chainpura, The. Sikar, Distt Sikar (Raj.) ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Manjeet Kaur with Ms. Taruna For Respondent(s) : None Present HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Order 11/11/2025
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:45313-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-9476/2024] 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 GOURAV/MAHIMA/50