Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jammu and Kashmir · body

2025 DAILYLAW 4505 (JK)

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS v. GURDEEP PACKAYA

WP(C)/2315/2025 · 2025-08-22

Sanjay Parihar, Sanjeev Kumar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP (C) No. 2315/2025 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 Brach, Integrated HQ of Ministry of Defence (Army), DHQ PO, New Delhi-110001. 3. Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension), Draupadi Ghat, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh-211014. .....Petitioner(s) Through :- Mr. Vikas Sharma, CGSC v/s No 12818449W Ex NK Gurdeep Packaya, S/o Late Sh. Isher Dass, R/o Village Rangpura, Tehsil R S Pura, District Jammu. .....Respondent(s) Through :- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE O R D E R 22.08.2025 (O R A L) 1. The impugned in this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is an order and judgment dated 06.08.2024 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Srinagar at Jammu [“the Tribunal”] in Original Application No. 291/2021 titled “Gurdeep Packaya Vs. Union of India & Ors.”, whereby the Tribunal has held the respondent entitled to grant of service pension from the day Sr. No. 38 2 WP (C) No. 2315/2025 following his date of discharge and restricting the arrears to three years before filing of the OA. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the judgment on record, we are of the considered opinion that the issue raised by the petitioners in this petition is fully covered by the judgment in “Pani Ram Vs. Union of India & Ors.” [AIR 2022 (2) SC 182] and, therefore, does not call for any further debate. 3. In view of the legal position clearly laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Pani Ram (supra), no infirmity or error of law can be attributed to the judgment impugned, which has proceeded solely on the law laid down in Pani Ram (supra). 4. For all these reasons, we find no merit in this writ petition and the same, is accordingly, dismissed along with connected application(s), if any. (Sanjay Parihar) (Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Judge JAMMU 22.08.2025 Manan Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No