CWP-20736 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA (161+173+178 1. CWP-20736 Union of India The Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 2. CWP-21008 Union of India and others Surjeet Kumar and another 3. CWP-21137 Union of India and others Army No.4067062F Ex. Sepoy Hukam Chand CORAM: Present: 736-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH +173+178) 20736-2025 Union of India and others Versus The Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 1008-2025 Union of India and others Versus Surjeet Kumar and another 1137-2025 Union of India and others Versus Army No.4067062F Ex. Sepoy Hukam Chand HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Dr. Anandeshwar Gautam, Sr. Panel Counsel for the petitioners-Union of India Mr. Naveen Gupta, Sr. Panel Counsel for the petitioners-Union of India in CWP Mr. Ramesh Chand Sharma, Sr. Panel Counsel for the petitioners-Union of India in CWP **** 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 28.07.2025 …Petitioners Versus The Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench and others ...Respondents …Petitioners Versus ...Respondents …Petitioners Versus Army No.4067062F Ex. Sepoy Hukam Chand and another ...Respondents ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI , Sr. Panel Counsel Union of India in CWP-20736-2025. Mr. Naveen Gupta, Sr. Panel Counsel Union of India in CWP-21008-2025. Mr. Ramesh Chand Sharma, Sr. Panel Counsel Union of India in CWP-21137-2025. 1 MANPREET SINGH 2025.07.31 19:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-20736 ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, 1. together, as the common taken up together being culled 2. India, is preferred by the Union of India, assailing (Annexure P Chandigarh (respondent No. Hon’ble Sup 3. disability pension to respondent No.2, while Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vs. Ram Avtar’ 4. disability pension, considering his disability to be 30% for life. Tribunal has relied upon the principal of rounding off to hold the benefit of disability pension to the extent judgment of the learned Tribunal has been assailed, is that the monetary benefits in terms of such determination three years, and not beyond that period. have relied upon an interim order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in, SLP (Civil) Diary well as Civil Appeals No.6820 Kumar’. 736-2025 ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. (ORAL) All the above mentioned petitions are amenable to be decided together, as the common issue is involved, therefore, taken up together for adjudication. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being culled-out from CWP-20736-2025. The writ petition, cast under Article 226 of the Constitution of preferred by the Union of India, assailing exure P-1), passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (respondent No.1), being contrary to the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, in catena of cases. Learned Tribunal has allowed the benefit of rounding off disability pension to respondent No.2, while Hon’ble Supreme Court, passed in Civil Appeal No.418 of 2012 of India vs. Ram Avtar’ decided on 10.12.2014. It is not disputed that respondent No.2, was already in receipt of disability pension, considering his disability to be 30% for life. Tribunal has relied upon the principal of rounding off to hold the benefit of disability pension to the extent of 50%. The limited ground judgment of the learned Tribunal has been assailed, is that the monetary benefits in terms of such determination, at best three years, and not beyond that period. For such purposes, th relied upon an interim order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in, (Civil) Diary No.21084 of 2025, titled well as Civil Appeals No.6820-6824 of 2020 2 (ORAL) petitions are amenable to be decided therefore, all the three petitions are For the sake of convenience, the facts are The writ petition, cast under Article 226 of the Constitution of preferred by the Union of India, assailing the order dated 03.05.2024 1), passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, , being contrary to the law laid down by allowed the benefit of rounding off disability pension to respondent No.2, while relying upon the judgment of Civil Appeal No.418 of 2012, titled ‘Union 10.12.2014. It is not disputed that respondent No.2, was already in receipt of disability pension, considering his disability to be 30% for life. The learned Tribunal has relied upon the principal of rounding off to hold the benefit of of 50%. The limited ground, on which the judgment of the learned Tribunal has been assailed, is that the monetary at best could have been restricted to For such purposes, the petitioners relied upon an interim order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in, 2025, titled ‘Union of India vs. Azad Singh’ 6824 of 2020 titled ‘Union of India vs. Girish 2 petitions are amenable to be decided petitions are For the sake of convenience, the facts are The writ petition, cast under Article 226 of the Constitution of 03.05.2024 1), passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, , being contrary to the law laid down by allowed the benefit of rounding off upon the judgment of ‘Union It is not disputed that respondent No.2, was already in receipt of The learned Tribunal has relied upon the principal of rounding off to hold the benefit of on which the judgment of the learned Tribunal has been assailed, is that the monetary have been restricted to petitioners relied upon an interim order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in, ‘Union of India vs. Azad Singh’ as Girish MANPREET SINGH 2025.07.31 19:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-20736 5. of three years 6. to three years came to be No.9946 of 201 ‘Davinder Singh vs. Union of India and others’ 736-2025 It is urged that arrears ought to have been restricted of three years only, even if it was to be allowed. The question as to whether the benefit of arrears c to three years where disability pension was being paid without rounding it of came to be first considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court No.9946 of 2016, decided on 20.09.2016 ‘Davinder Singh vs. Union of India and others’ “We find merit in that submission. a perusal of the order passed in Jaisingh's case, it appears that while most of the cases disposed off in the said batch were transferred cases where writ petitions had been filed earlier than 2010, there were half a dozen fresh cases that were filed in the year 2010 and later. The Tribunal had notwithstanding the delay in the filing of the O.As granted redress petitioners in the said batch of cases w.e.f. 01.01.1996 That being so and the order with interes Tribunal in Jaisingh's case and batch of cases having been affirmed by this Court, we see no distinction between the cases dealt with by the Tribunal in that batch and the appellant's case to warrant a differential treatment to h in the matter of grant of arrears. We accordingly allow this appeal and modify the order passed by the Tribunal to the extent that the appellant shall also on the analogy of the order passed by the Tribunal in Jai Singh's case supra be entitled to arrears payable to him by reason of rounding off of disability pension w.e.f. 01.01.1996 with interest @ 8% p.a. subject to adjustment of any amount already received by him for the said period. We are told by learned counsel for the respondent that the appellan received the benefit of arrears w.e.f. 01.01.1996 to 01.07.2009. If that be so, arrears will be confined only to the period that has not already been paid for. No costs. 3 urged that arrears ought to have been restricted to the extent only, even if it was to be allowed. The question as to whether the benefit of arrears could be limited where disability pension was being paid without rounding it of first considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal , decided on 20.09.2016, by a Three Judge Bench ‘Davinder Singh vs. Union of India and others’, wherein it was held:- We find merit in that submission. a perusal of the order passed in Jaisingh's case, it appears that while most of the cases disposed off in the said batch were transferred cases where writ petitions had been filed earlier than 2010, there were half a dozen fresh cases that were filed in the year 2010 and later. The Tribunal had notwithstanding the delay in the filing of the O.As granted redress petitioners in the said batch of cases w.e.f. 01.01.1996 That being so and the order with interest @ 8% p.a.. passed by the Tribunal in Jaisingh's case and batch of cases having been affirmed by this Court, we see no distinction between the cases dealt with by the Tribunal in that batch and the appellant's case to warrant a differential treatment to h in the matter of grant of arrears. We accordingly allow this appeal and modify the order passed by the Tribunal to the extent that the appellant shall also on the analogy of the order passed by the Tribunal in Jai Singh's case supra be rs payable to him by reason of rounding off of disability pension w.e.f. 01.01.1996 with interest @ 8% p.a. subject to adjustment of any amount already received by him for the said period. We are told by learned counsel for the respondent that the appellant has already received the benefit of arrears w.e.f. 01.01.1996 to 01.07.2009. If that be so, arrears will be confined only to the period that has not already been paid for. No costs.” 3 to the extent be limited where disability pension was being paid without rounding it of in Civil Appeal in We find merit in that submission. a perusal of the order passed in Jaisingh's case, it appears that while most of the cases disposed off in the said batch were transferred cases where writ petitions had been filed earlier than 2010, there were half a dozen fresh cases that were filed in the year 2010 and later. The Tribunal had notwithstanding the delay in the filing of the O.As granted redress petitioners in the said batch of cases w.e.f. 01.01.1996 That being so t @ 8% p.a.. passed by the Tribunal in Jaisingh's case and batch of cases having been affirmed by this Court, we see no distinction between the cases dealt with by the Tribunal in that batch and the appellant's case to warrant a differential treatment to him in the matter of grant of arrears. We accordingly allow this appeal and modify the order passed by the Tribunal to the extent that the appellant shall also on the analogy of the order passed by the Tribunal in Jai Singh's case supra be rs payable to him by reason of rounding off of disability pension w.e.f. 01.01.1996 with interest @ 8% p.a. subject to adjustment of any amount already received by him for the said period. We are told by learned t has already received the benefit of arrears w.e.f. 01.01.1996 to 01.07.2009. If that be so, arrears will be confined only to ” MANPREET SINGH 2025.07.31 19:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-20736 7. Supreme Court in India and others 8. recent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in India and others’ 2025 SSC OnLine SC 895. Court’s observation is 736-2025 The aforesaid proposition of law has been reiterated by Hon’ble reme Court in ‘Madan Prasad Sinha alias Sanatan Baba India and others’ 2019 (15) SCC 232, wherein, the Court observed : “9. In this background, we are of the view that the denial of disability pension to the appellant for the period between 24-3-1995 and 30 disability element has already been rounded off in pursuance of the previous order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal. 10. We accordingly, allow the appeal and direct that the appellant shall be granted arrear pension in accordance with the applicable rates prevalent at the relevant time between 24 The computation shall be carried out and arrears shall be paid over to the appellant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. The above said proposition has been noticed and reiterated judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in India and others’ 2025 SSC OnLine SC 895. ’s observation is extracted hereinafter: “47. Thus having regard to the discussions made above, we are of the considered view that the impugned orders of the Tribunal are wholly unsustainable in law. That being the position, impugned orders dated 22.01.20 26.02.2016 are hereby set aside. Consequently, respondents are directed to grant the disability element of disability pension to the appellant at the rate of 50% with effect from 01.01.1996 onwards for life. The arrears shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum till payment. The above directions shall be carried out by the respondents within three months from today.” 4 The aforesaid proposition of law has been reiterated by Hon’ble alias Sanatan Baba vs. Union of , wherein, the Court observed :- 9. In this background, we are of the view that the denial of disability pension to the appellant for the period 1995 and 30-1-2014 was misconceived. The disability element has already been rounded off in pursuance of the previous order passed by the Armed 10. We accordingly, allow the appeal and direct that the appellant shall be granted arrears on account of disability pension in accordance with the applicable rates prevalent at the relevant time between 24-3-1995 and 30-1-2014. The computation shall be carried out and arrears shall be paid over to the appellant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.” The above said proposition has been noticed and reiterated in a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Bijender Singh vs. Union of India and others’ 2025 SSC OnLine SC 895. Relevant paragraph of the extracted hereinafter:- “47. Thus having regard to the discussions made above, we are of the considered view that the impugned orders of the Tribunal are wholly unsustainable in law. That being the position, impugned orders dated 22.01.2018 and 26.02.2016 are hereby set aside. Consequently, respondents are directed to grant the disability element of disability pension to the appellant at the rate of 50% with effect from 01.01.1996 onwards for life. The arrears shall ate of 6% per annum till payment. The above directions shall be carried out by the respondents within three months from today.” 4 The aforesaid proposition of law has been reiterated by Hon’ble vs. Union of 9. In this background, we are of the view that the denial of disability pension to the appellant for the period 2014 was misconceived. The disability element has already been rounded off in pursuance of the previous order passed by the Armed 10. We accordingly, allow the appeal and direct that the s on account of disability pension in accordance with the applicable rates prevalent 2014. The computation shall be carried out and arrears shall be paid over to the appellant within a period of three months in a ‘Bijender Singh vs. Union of Relevant paragraph of the “47. Thus having regard to the discussions made above, we are of the considered view that the impugned orders of the Tribunal are wholly unsustainable in law. That being 18 and 26.02.2016 are hereby set aside. Consequently, respondents are directed to grant the disability element of disability pension to the appellant at the rate of 50% with effect from 01.01.1996 onwards for life. The arrears shall ate of 6% per annum till payment. The above directions shall be carried out by the MANPREET SINGH 2025.07.31 19:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-20736 9. law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the aforesaid matter. Merely, because SLPs have in a few cases followed. 10. dismissed. July 28, 2025 Manpreet 736-2025 The judgment of the learned Tribunal is in consonance with the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the aforesaid matter. Merely, SLPs have been entertained and interim protection has been granted in a few cases, would not mean that the bindi Consequently, all the above captioned ( , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 5 The judgment of the learned Tribunal is in consonance with the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the aforesaid matter. Merely, been entertained and interim protection has been granted binding proposition of law will not be above captioned writ petitions are (ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA JUDGE (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No 5 The judgment of the learned Tribunal is in consonance with the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the aforesaid matter. Merely, been entertained and interim protection has been granted will not be s are ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA) ) MANPREET SINGH 2025.07.31 19:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment