CWP-20761 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA (163) Union of India Ex. Nb. Sub. Mehar Chand Bhadana CORAM: Present: ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, challenging an order passed by the Chandigarh, at Chandimandir No. 698 of 20 2. the Defence S from service with effect from 30.11.2006 after completing 10 days of service 13 years, on account of his L further extension in service and was discharged on 30.11.2006. The claim of respondent/applicant accorded by the authorities of the Union of India. 3. disability element Service element in the disability pension was, 20761-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Union of India and others Versus Ex. Nb. Sub. Mehar Chand Bhadana and another HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Ms. Neha Jaggi, Sr. Panel Counsel for the petitioners-Union of India. **** ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. (ORAL) This appeal has been filed by the Union of India on 1 challenging an order passed by the Armed Forces Chandigarh, at Chandimandir (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) on 24.0 No. 698 of 2017. The respondent (applicant before the Tribunal) was enrolled in Defence Security Corps (DSC) on 04.11.1996 from service with effect from 30.11.2006 after completing 10 days of service. Though he was continued for further extension in service to on account of his Low Medical Category S further extension in service and was discharged on 30.11.2006. The claim of /applicant for disability pension consisting of ser accorded by the authorities of the Union of India. The authorities of the Union of India disability element of disability pension @ 30% with effect from 01.12.2006. Service element in the disability pension was, -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-20761-2025 Date of Decision : 28.07.2025 …Petitioners another ...Respondents ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Ms. Neha Jaggi, Sr. Panel Counsel Union of India. (ORAL) This appeal has been filed by the Union of India on 19.07.2025 Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) on 24.01.2019 in OA The respondent (applicant before the Tribunal) was enrolled in ) on 04.11.1996, and he was discharged from service with effect from 30.11.2006 after completing 10 years and 27 continued for further extension in service to ategory S-2 (P), he was not granted further extension in service and was discharged on 30.11.2006. The claim of for disability pension consisting of service element was accorded by the authorities of the Union of India. authorities of the Union of India have released only the @ 30% with effect from 01.12.2006. Service element in the disability pension was, however, denied. In the claim .2025, , Regional Bench, OA The respondent (applicant before the Tribunal) was enrolled in and he was discharged and 27 continued for further extension in service to granted further extension in service and was discharged on 30.11.2006. The claim of vice element was have released only the @ 30% with effect from 01.12.2006. however, denied. In the claim VARINDER SINGH 2025.07.31 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment CWP-20761 filed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has relied upon Regulation 280 in addition to Regulation 179 1961 to hold the respondent entitled to service element also in the disabil The Tribunal has also allowed rounding off in terms of the judgment rendered in Civil Appeal No. 418 of 2012 decided on 10.12.2014. 4. has filed the 5. on record. Even otherwise, the controversy raised in the mat adjudicated by our judgment of Union of India and others vs Ex. Nk. Milap Chand and another 6. rendered in July 28, 2025 Manpreet/vs 20761-2025 filed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has relied upon Regulation 280 in addition to Regulation 179 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, to hold the respondent entitled to service element also in the disabil The Tribunal has also allowed rounding off in terms of the judgment rendered Civil Appeal No. 418 of 2012 Union of India and others vs Ram Avtar decided on 10.12.2014. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Tribunal, the Union of India has filed the present writ petition after more than 6 years. No plausible justification for the on record. Even otherwise, the controversy raised in the mat adjudicated by our judgment of even date delivered in CWP No. Union of India and others vs Ex. Nk. Milap Chand and another In view of the reasons assigned by us, in rendered in Ex. Nk. Milap Chand (supra), this petition fails and is dismissed. ( , 2025 /vs Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -2- filed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has relied upon Regulations 266 and of the Pension Regulations for the Army, to hold the respondent entitled to service element also in the disability. The Tribunal has also allowed rounding off in terms of the judgment rendered Union of India and others vs Ram Avtar Aggrieved by the judgment of the Tribunal, the Union of India writ petition after more than 6 years. for the inordinate delay has been placed on record. Even otherwise, the controversy raised in the matter stands date delivered in CWP No. 1947 of 2025 Union of India and others vs Ex. Nk. Milap Chand and another. In view of the reasons assigned by us, in a separate judgment his petition fails and is dismissed. (ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA JUDGE (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No 266 and of the Pension Regulations for the Army, ity. The Tribunal has also allowed rounding off in terms of the judgment rendered Union of India and others vs Ram Avtar, Aggrieved by the judgment of the Tribunal, the Union of India inordinate delay has been placed ter stands 1947 of 2025 separate judgment his petition fails and is dismissed. ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA) ) VARINDER SINGH 2025.07.31 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment