Sr. No.09 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP(C) No. 2350/2025 1. Union of India through its Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi-110011. 2. Additional Director General Personnel Services, Adjutant General’s Branch, Integrated HQ of Ministry of Defence (army), DHQ PO, New Delhi-110 001. 3. Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions), Draupadi Ghat, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh- 211014. 4. OIC Records, DSC Records, Pin- 901277, C/o 56 APO. …. Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through:- Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI with Mr. Eishaan Dadhichi, CGSC V/s No. 2477735K Ex Lance Naik Bhushan Lal, S/o Shri Punjab Singh, R/o Village & Post Office: Sarh, Tehsil: Mohore, District: Reasi, (J&K)-182315. …..Respondent(s) Through:- Mr. Amit Singh, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE ORDER 01.09.2025 (ORAL) Sanjeev Kumar J 1. Impugned in this petition, filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek to challenge an order and judgment WP(C) No. 2350/2025 2 dated 15.12.2022 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Srinagar at Jammu [“the Tribunal”] in OA No. 251/2021 titled as “ Bhushan Lal Vs. Union of India & Others”, whereby, the Tribunal has held the respondent entitled to the grant of disability element of disability pension @ 75% as against 60% for life from the date of discharge i.e., 01.04.2020. 2. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the respondent took a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that against the judgment impugned the petitioners had earlier come before this Court in WP(C) No. 2791/2024 which was dismissed as withdrawn in terms of order dated 25.11.2024. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we find that the petitioners have, in the memorandum of writ petition, specifically mentioned in paragraph 19, that in the subject case they had earlier filed WP(C) No. 2791/2024 which came to be dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 25.11.2024. To be fair to the petitioners they have also appended the order of withdrawal with the writ petition without explaining as to how the second petition is maintainable in the face of withdrawal of the earlier petition challenging the same order of AFT. 4. Having confronted with the aforesaid position, learned counsel for petitioners was fair enough to submit that since the earlier writ petition challenging the impugned order was withdrawn without WP(C) No. 2350/2025 3 reserving any liberty, as such, the fresh petition was not maintainable. 5. Be that as it may, this Court cannot ignore the fact that this is a second petition on the same cause of action and challenging the same order of AFT, therefore, this petition is hit by principle of res judicata. 6. Dismissed. (Sanjay Parihar) (Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Judge JAMMU 01.09.2025 Rahul Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No