HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP(C) No. 2794/2024 CM No. 6809/2024 Union of India Th. Defence Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and ors. .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through :- Mr. Vishal Sharma, Sr. Advocate (DSGI) with Mr. Eishaan Dadhichi, CGSC v/s Bansi Lal .....Respondent(s) Through :- Mr. Amit Singh, Advocate CORAM: HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE ORDER (ORAL) 16.09.2025 Sanjeev Kumar J 1. Impugned in this petition filed by the Union of India is an order and judgment dated 16.01.2023 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench Srinagar at Jammu [“the Tribunal”] in OA No. 12/2023 titled, ‘Ex Naik Bansi Lal vs. Union of India & Ors.’, whereby the Tribunal while allowing OA filed by the respondent herein, has quashed the orders impugned before it, declining the disability element of disability pension to the respondent. 2. Indisputably, the respondent was invalidated out of service of Territorial Army with disability assessed @30% for life, to be rounded off to 50% for life. He was denied benefit of disability element of disability pension on the ground that he was discharged from the Territorial Army and not from the regular Army. Sr. No. 34 2 WP(C) No. 2794/2024 3. The issue which is raised by Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned DSGI is fully covered and decided by the Supreme Court in case titled, „Pani Ram vs. Union of India & Ors.‟ 2021 (9) SCR 1024. Relying upon the aforesaid judgment, this Court has also dismissed similar writ petition filed by a similarly situated ex-serviceman i.e. WP(C) No. 2456/2024 titled, ‘Union of India and ors. vs. Ex Nk Babu Ram’ on 20.08.2025. 4. We have gone through the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal and are of the considered opinion that the case of the respondent is fully covered by the judgment of Pani Ram (supra) and therefore, no more debate is required to be entered into the issue. The judgment passed by the Tribunal which is impugned before us is in tune with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Pani Ram (supra), therefore, does not call for any interference of this Court. 5. This petition is found to be without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. (Sanjay Parihar) (Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Judge JAMMU 16.09.2025 Neha-II Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No NEHA KUMARI 2025.09.18 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document