CWP-10037-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 137 UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ROSHAN LAL AND ANOTHER CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Ms. Shalini Atri, Senior Panel counsel for UOI/petitioner(s). ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) The petitioners have impugned the order dated 09.02.2022 (Annexure P-1) pas of 2018, preferred by respondent No.1 petitioners to decide the case of respondent No.1 in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court Another vs. Surender Singh Parmar 2. Learned counsel for had voluntarily retired on 05.07.1967 and his case from the Union of India and 3. Heard. 4. Respondent No.1 05.05.1953. He months and 02 days of service dispute that he had been denied 2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-10037-2025 DATE OF DECISION: 17.07.2025 UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Versus ROSHAN LAL AND ANOTHER HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Ms. Shalini Atri, Senior Panel counsel for UOI/petitioner(s). ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) The petitioners have impugned the order dated 09.02.2022 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, preferred by respondent No.1, was disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to decide the case of respondent No.1 in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of Surender Singh Parmar, (2015) 3 SCC 404 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent no.1 had voluntarily retired on 05.07.1967 and his case Union of India and Another vs. Surender Singh Parmar (supra) Heard. espondent No.1 was enrolled in the Indian Army w.e.f. 05.05.1953. He had sought voluntary retirement months and 02 days of service, which was granted w.e.f. 05.07.1967 e had been denied service pension on the ground that the minimum IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 2025 DATE OF DECISION: 17.07.2025 … Petitioner (s) ... Respondent(s) ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Ms. Shalini Atri, Senior Panel counsel for UOI/petitioner(s). The petitioners have impugned the order dated 09.02.2022 sed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, whereby O.A. No. 3291 disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to decide the case of respondent No.1 in accordance with the in the case of Union of India and , (2015) 3 SCC 404. the petitioners submits that respondent no.1 had voluntarily retired on 05.07.1967 and his case is distinguishable on facts s. Surender Singh Parmar (supra). was enrolled in the Indian Army w.e.f. retirement after putting 14 years, 02 granted w.e.f. 05.07.1967. It is not in pension on the ground that the minimum The petitioners have impugned the order dated 09.02.2022 No. 3291 disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to decide the case of respondent No.1 in accordance with the Union of India and the petitioners submits that respondent no.1 is distinguishable on facts was enrolled in the Indian Army w.e.f. after putting 14 years, 02 It is not in pension on the ground that the minimum SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.07.18 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10037-2025 qualifying service O.A. No. 3291 of 2018 seeking condoning the shortfall of about 9 months and 29 days of service. The Tribunal had disposed of the application by directing the present petitioners to decide his case in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case o of India and Another vs. Surender Singh Parmar, (2015) 3 SCC 404 5. We have gone through the Court. The respondent therein had sought voluntary retirement after served in the Indian Navy for a period of sought rounding off the length of service and 01 year of service by the Union of India instructions dated 30.10.1987 provides that qualifying service, less than six months shall be treated as a reckoned as qualifyin therein was entitled to claim total period of service as 14 years for the purpose of calculation of pension. dated 14.08.2001, the Ministry of Defence administrative power empowering him to condone the shortfall in qualifying service for grant of pension beyond six months and order is reproduced hereinbelow: “Sanction is hereby accorded in pursuance of MOD Letter No.34(3)/2001/D(O&M) dated 3.8.2001 for delegation of administrative powers with the approval of Raksha Mantri to the Services Hqrs in respect of the subjects indicated below: 2025 2 qualifying service to be eligible for grant of pension is 15 years. O.A. No. 3291 of 2018 seeking inter-alia grant of pensio condoning the shortfall of about 9 months and 29 days of service. The Tribunal had disposed of the application by directing the present petitioners to decide his case in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case o of India and Another vs. Surender Singh Parmar, (2015) 3 SCC 404 We have gone through the aforesaid he respondent therein had sought voluntary retirement after the Indian Navy for a period of 13 years, 10 months and 13 days rounding off the length of service and condonation of service. The Supreme Court had dismissed the by the Union of India, noticing that Clause 5 instructions dated 30.10.1987 provides that, qualifying service, a ‘fraction of a year equal to three months and above but less than six months shall be treated as a reckoned as qualifying service’. Accordingly, it was held that the respondent therein was entitled to claim total period of service as 14 years for the purpose of calculation of pension. The Supreme Court had further noted that dated 14.08.2001, the Ministry of Defence had incorporated administrative powers had been delegated to the competent authority empowering him to condone the shortfall in qualifying service for grant of pension beyond six months and up to twelve months. order is reproduced hereinbelow: “Sanction is hereby accorded in pursuance of MOD Letter No.34(3)/2001/D(O&M) dated 3.8.2001 for delegation of administrative powers with the approval of Raksha Mantri to the Services Hqrs in respect of the subjects indicated below: pension is 15 years. He preferred grant of pension w.e.f. 05.07.1967 by condoning the shortfall of about 9 months and 29 days of service. The Tribunal had disposed of the application by directing the present petitioners to decide his case in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of Union of India and Another vs. Surender Singh Parmar, (2015) 3 SCC 404. aforesaid judgment of the Supreme he respondent therein had sought voluntary retirement after having 13 years, 10 months and 13 days and condonation of shortfall of about The Supreme Court had dismissed the Civil Appeal preferred Clause 5 of the Ministry of Defence in calculating the length of fraction of a year equal to three months and above but less than six months shall be treated as a completed one half year and , it was held that the respondent therein was entitled to claim total period of service as 14 years for the purpose of The Supreme Court had further noted that, vide order incorporated Clause (v), whereby had been delegated to the competent authority, empowering him to condone the shortfall in qualifying service for grant of months. Relevant extract of the “Sanction is hereby accorded in pursuance of MOD Letter No.34(3)/2001/D(O&M) dated 3.8.2001 for delegation of administrative powers with the approval of Raksha Mantri to the Services Hqrs in respect of the subjects indicated below: He preferred n w.e.f. 05.07.1967 by condoning the shortfall of about 9 months and 29 days of service. The Tribunal had disposed of the application by directing the present petitioners to decide his Union judgment of the Supreme having and about ppeal preferred of Defence in calculating the length of fraction of a year equal to three months and above but completed one half year and , it was held that the respondent therein was entitled to claim total period of service as 14 years for the purpose of vide order whereby , empowering him to condone the shortfall in qualifying service for grant of Relevant extract of the SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.07.18 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10037-2025 XXX (v) Condonation of pension in respect of PBOR beyond six months and upto 12 months”. (vi) to (xiv) ..XXXX 7. This issues with the concurrence of Defence(Finance) vide their DO No.539/Addl FA (B) dt.13 Aug 2001. The Supreme Court had also observed that, since the respondent therein had retired on 24.06.1985, when the instructions dated 14.08.2001 were not in existence, shortfall in qualifying service for grant of pensi twelve months, w.e.f. 14.08.2001 came into force. Pension Regulations for Navy, 1964 condonation of shortfall in pensionable service shall not be applicable in which a sailor was declared as null and void being India, by the Bombay High Court in the case of India WP(OS) No. 430 of 2005, decided on 22.11.2006 Court in Surender Singh Parmar vs. Union of India WP(C) No. 12507 of 2004 decided on 06.11.2007. the abovementioned judgement passed by the Bombay High Court before the Supreme Court. 6. In the rendered service 2025 3 (v) Condonation of shortfall in Qualifying Service for grant of pension in respect of PBOR beyond six months and upto 12 (vi) to (xiv) ..XXXX 7. This issues with the concurrence of Defence(Finance) vide their DO No.539/Addl FA (B) dt.13 Aug 2001. Sd/--- SHUKLA) (PENSIONS) The Supreme Court had also observed that, since the respondent therein had retired on 24.06.1985, when the instructions dated 14.08.2001 were not in existence, the respondent therein was also shortfall in qualifying service for grant of pension beyond six months and upto , w.e.f. 14.08.2001, i.e., the date The Supreme Court had also held sion Regulations for Navy, 1964 which provided that the benefit of condonation of shortfall in pensionable service shall not be applicable in which a sailor was discharged from service at his own request, had been declared as null and void being ultra vires to Article 14 of the Constitution of by the Bombay High Court in the case of WP(OS) No. 430 of 2005, decided on 22.11.2006 Surender Singh Parmar vs. Union of India WP(C) No. 12507 of decided on 06.11.2007. The appellant had not challenged the validity of the abovementioned judgement passed by the Bombay High Court before the In the instant petition, it is not in dispute that service for 14 years, 02 months and 02 days shortfall in Qualifying Service for grant of pension in respect of PBOR beyond six months and upto 12 7. This issues with the concurrence of Defence(Finance) vide their DO No.539/Addl FA (B) dt.13 Aug 2001. --- (SUDHAKER SHUKLA) DIRECTOR (PENSIONS)” The Supreme Court had also observed that, since the respondent therein had retired on 24.06.1985, when the instructions dated 14.08.2001 were also entitled to claim condonation of on beyond six months and upto the date on which the said instructions held that Regulation 82(a) of the which provided that the benefit of condonation of shortfall in pensionable service shall not be applicable to the case from service at his own request, had been to Article 14 of the Constitution of by the Bombay High Court in the case of Gurmukh Singh Vs. Union of WP(OS) No. 430 of 2005, decided on 22.11.2006 and the Delhi High Surender Singh Parmar vs. Union of India WP(C) No. 12507 of The appellant had not challenged the validity of the abovementioned judgement passed by the Bombay High Court before the it is not in dispute that respondent No.1 had and 02 days and had retired on The Supreme Court had also observed that, since the respondent therein had retired on 24.06.1985, when the instructions dated 14.08.2001 were condonation of on beyond six months and upto instructions that Regulation 82(a) of the which provided that the benefit of to the case from service at his own request, had been to Article 14 of the Constitution of f and the Delhi High Surender Singh Parmar vs. Union of India WP(C) No. 12507 of The appellant had not challenged the validity of the abovementioned judgement passed by the Bombay High Court before the No.1 had and had retired on SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.07.18 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10037-2025 05.07.1967. The Ministry of Defence order power to condone the shortfall 14.08.2001. We are unable to agree with the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that the present case is distinguishable on facts from that of the judgement in the case of Parmar (supra) Regulations for Indian Army, Pension Regulations for Navy and therefore, we find no difficulty in applying the ratio of decision of the Bombay High court in which was affirmed by the Supreme court in Surender Singh Parmar (supra) that the case of respondent No.1 is Supreme Court in the case of Parmar (supra). 7. Further judgment in the case of Parmar (supra) of India had agreed that the case is indeed squarely covered by the judgment. The petitioners have not preferred any review application the concession made by Instead, the petitioner by filing the instant petition after a lapse of more than three years 8. In the afore illegality in the order of the Tribunal disposing of the O.A. petitioners (respondents therein) to decide the case of respondent no.1 2025 4 The Ministry of Defence order, granting t to condone the shortfall in qualifying service We are unable to agree with the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that the present case is distinguishable on facts from that of the judgement in the case of Union of India and Parmar (supra). It is not in dispute that Regulation 125(a) Regulations for Indian Army,1961 is para materia Pension Regulations for Navy and therefore, we find no difficulty in applying ratio of decision of the Bombay High court in was affirmed by the Supreme court in Union of India and Surender Singh Parmar (supra). Resultantly, that the case of respondent No.1 is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and . Furthermore, the O.A. had been disposed of in terms of the judgment in the case of Union of India and Another after the counsel for the parties including counsel for the Union of India had agreed that the case is indeed squarely covered by the judgment. The petitioners have not preferred any review application made by the counsel before the Tribunal, petitioner has impugned the order of the Tribunal dated 09.02.2022 instant petition. Moreover, it is evident that the writ has been filed r a lapse of more than three years, without any explanation for this In the afore-noted facts and circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the order of the Tribunal disposing of the O.A. petitioners (respondents therein) to decide the case of respondent no.1 granting the competent authority the service, came into effect only on We are unable to agree with the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that the present case is distinguishable on facts from that of the Union of India and Another vs. Surender Singh Regulation 125(a) of the Pension para materia to Regulation 82(a) of Pension Regulations for Navy and therefore, we find no difficulty in applying ratio of decision of the Bombay High court in Gurmukh Singh (supra) Union of India and Another vs. we are of the considered view covered by the judgment of the Union of India and Another vs. Surender Singh more, the O.A. had been disposed of in terms of the Another vs. Surender Singh after the counsel for the parties including counsel for the Union of India had agreed that the case is indeed squarely covered by the judgment. The petitioners have not preferred any review application, despite their view that before the Tribunal, had been erroneous. has impugned the order of the Tribunal dated 09.02.2022 t is evident that the writ has been filed without any explanation for this delay. noted facts and circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the order of the Tribunal disposing of the O.A. and directing the petitioners (respondents therein) to decide the case of respondent no.1 in terms the , came into effect only on We are unable to agree with the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that the present case is distinguishable on facts from that of the s. Surender Singh of the Pension to Regulation 82(a) of Pension Regulations for Navy and therefore, we find no difficulty in applying (supra) s. we are of the considered view covered by the judgment of the s. Surender Singh more, the O.A. had been disposed of in terms of the Surender Singh after the counsel for the parties including counsel for the Union of India had agreed that the case is indeed squarely covered by the judgment. view that . has impugned the order of the Tribunal dated 09.02.2022 t is evident that the writ has been filed noted facts and circumstances, we do not find any and directing the in terms SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.07.18 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10037-2025 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Another vs. Surender Singh Parmar (supra) 9. Consequently, the petition stands dismissed. 17.07.2025 SwarnjitS Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2025 5 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of s. Surender Singh Parmar (supra) within a period of three months Consequently, the petition stands dismissed. (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No the case of Union of India and within a period of three months. Consequently, the petition stands dismissed. (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No Union of India and SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.07.18 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document