IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 130 UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS BALWANT SINGH AND ANR CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Mr. ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) The petitioners have challenged the order dated 02.02.2024 (Annexure P-1) whereby the Application (O.A.) pension by condoning the shortfall of 227 days service in completing 15 years of service. 2. Heard. 3. After hearing considered view that this petition is been issued by the Armed Forces Tribunal to decide the case of in terms of the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Original Application 1238 of 2016, titled Shama Kaur Vs. Union of India and others, decided on 01.10.2019. judgment had been implemented and was not challenged by the petitioners. The IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-13736-2025 DATE OF DECISION: 18.07.2025 UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Versus BALWANT SINGH AND ANR. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Mr. Harmanjot Singh Gill Advocate for the petitioner ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) The petitioners have challenged the order dated 02.02.2024 1) whereby the Armed Forces Tribunal ha (O.A.) preferred by respondent No.1 for release of second service pension by condoning the shortfall of 227 days service in completing 15 years of Heard. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, we are of the considered view that this petition is devoid of been issued by the Armed Forces Tribunal to decide the case of in terms of the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Original Application 1238 of 2016, titled Shama Kaur Vs. Union of India and others, decided on 01.10.2019. judgment had been implemented and was not challenged by the petitioners. The IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 2025 TE OF DECISION: 18.07.2025 … Petitioner (s) ... Respondent(s) HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Advocate for the petitioners. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 02.02.2024 Tribunal had allowed the Original No.1 for release of second service pension by condoning the shortfall of 227 days service in completing 15 years of counsel for the petitioners, we are of the void of any merit. The directions have been issued by the Armed Forces Tribunal to decide the case of respondent No.1 in terms of the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Original Application 1238 of 2016, titled Smt. Shama Kaur Vs. Union of India and others, decided on 01.10.2019. This judgment had been implemented and was not challenged by the petitioners. The The petitioners have challenged the order dated 02.02.2024 allowed the Original No.1 for release of second service pension by condoning the shortfall of 227 days service in completing 15 years of counsel for the petitioners, we are of the any merit. The directions have respondent No.1 in terms of the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Smt. This SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.07.18 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13736-2025 petitioners had also preferred a similar 2025 titled, Union of India and others Vs. Ex. Naik Kuldip Singh been dismissed by the coordinate Bench of this Court on 24.04.2025. that the condonation of shortfall of service upto one year by judicial intervention has been affirmed Surender Singh Parmar, petition has been preferred after order. 4. In view of the above, th stands dismissed. 18.07.2025 SwarnjitS Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2025 petitioners had also preferred a similar writ petition bearing CWP No.8886 Union of India and others Vs. Ex. Naik Kuldip Singh been dismissed by the coordinate Bench of this Court on 24.04.2025. that the condonation of shortfall of service upto one year by judicial intervention affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Surender Singh Parmar, (2015) 3 SCC 404. tion has been preferred after a period of 1½ In view of the above, this petition being devoid of any merit stands dismissed. (ANUPINDER SIN (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No -2- petition bearing CWP No.8886 of Union of India and others Vs. Ex. Naik Kuldip Singh, which has been dismissed by the coordinate Bench of this Court on 24.04.2025. It is trite that the condonation of shortfall of service upto one year by judicial intervention he case of Union of India Vs. It is also apt to notice that this ½ years of passing the impugned petition being devoid of any merits, (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No of which has It is trite that the condonation of shortfall of service upto one year by judicial intervention Union of India Vs. this impugned s, SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.07.18 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document