137 UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS SEP HAKAM SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH BALBIR KAUR AND ANOTHER CORAM: Present: HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) 1. 20.02.2025 Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) by which, the benefit of invalid pension serviceman’s lifetime and thereafter the benefit of ord has been granted in favour 2. has erred in directing/considering the claim of respondent No.1, widow of the deceased ex that the relevant service records pertaining to her late husband had already been destroyed in the year 2008 after expiry of the prescribed period of retention. It is submitted that the deceased had been Army on 18.08.1971 and was Rule 13(3) Item III(v) of the Army Rules, 1954 and had been granted Invalid Gratuity and Death IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-28471 Date of Decision : UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS VERSUS SEP HAKAM SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH BALBIR KAUR AND ANOTHER CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MINDERJEET YADAV Ms. Neha Sharma, Senior Panel Counsel for the petitioners-Union of India. HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the order dated .2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No. 2 Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) by which, the benefit of invalid pension serviceman’s lifetime and thereafter the benefit of ord has been granted in favour of the widow of respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Tribunal has erred in directing/considering the claim of respondent No.1, widow of the deceased ex-serviceman, for grant of that the relevant service records pertaining to her late husband had already been destroyed in the year 2008 after expiry of the prescribed period of retention. It is submitted that the deceased had been Army on 18.08.1971 and was invalided out of service in the year 1978 under Rule 13(3) Item III(v) of the Army Rules, 1954 and had been granted Invalid Gratuity and Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity at the relevant time. However, IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 28471-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision : 03.09.2026 ........Petitioners VERSUS SEP HAKAM SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH WIDOW ........Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MINDERJEET YADAV Ms. Neha Sharma, Senior Panel Counsel Union of India. HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the order dated 1) passed by respondent No. 2-Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) by which, the benefit of invalid pension during the deceased ex serviceman’s lifetime and thereafter the benefit of ordinary family pension of respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Tribunal has erred in directing/considering the claim of respondent No.1, widow of nt of invalid pension, despite the fact that the relevant service records pertaining to her late husband had already been destroyed in the year 2008 after expiry of the prescribed period of retention. It is submitted that the deceased had been enrolled in the Indian invalided out of service in the year 1978 under Rule 13(3) Item III(v) of the Army Rules, 1954 and had been granted Invalid Retirement Gratuity at the relevant time. However, WIDOW In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the order dated Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the during the deceased ex- inary family pension Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Tribunal has erred in directing/considering the claim of respondent No.1, widow of pension, despite the fact that the relevant service records pertaining to her late husband had already been destroyed in the year 2008 after expiry of the prescribed period of the Indian invalided out of service in the year 1978 under Rule 13(3) Item III(v) of the Army Rules, 1954 and had been granted Invalid Retirement Gratuity at the relevant time. However, SAPNA GOYAL 2026.09.09 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-28471-2026 (O&M) -2- there is no surviving service/medical record to establish the nature of the disability, the percentage thereof, or that the disability was attributable to or aggravated by military service, which are essential requirements for grant of invalid pension. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners argues that for the grant of benefit of invalid pension, the personnel concerned should have rendered a minimum of 10 years of service, which minimum period of service required has not been rendered by respondent No.1 in the present case. Therefore, the grant of benefit of invalid pension to deceased and ordinary family pension to the wife respondent No.1, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, is incorrect. 4. Further, another argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that benefit of invalid pension can only be granted prospectively from 04.01.2019 onwards, keeping in view the instruction dated 16.07.2020 issued by Government of India whereas, the case of respondent No.1 related to a period prior to that. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record with her able assistance. 6. The grievance raised at hands by learned counsel for the petitioners that minimum service of 10 years is required for grant of invalid pension, it should be noted that same issued has already been dealt by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP(C) No.20339 of 2011 titled as Union of India and others vs. P.A. Thomas, decided on 14.03.2019, whereby it has been held that even if an officer is invalided out prior to the completion of 10 years of service, he/she is entitled for the grant of invalid pension. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are as under:- SAPNA GOYAL 2026.09.09 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-28471-2026 (O&M) -3- “2. Rules 38 and 49 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 have been amended on 4.1.2019 in the following manner:- “2. In the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 – (i) in rule 38, for sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2), the following sub-rules shall respectively be substituted, namely:- “(1) The case of a Government servant acquiring a disability, where the provisions of section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (49 of 2016) are applicable, shall be governed by the provisions of the said section: Provided that such employee shall produce a disability certificate from the competent authority as prescribed under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017. (2) If a Government servant, in a case where the provisions of section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (49 of 2016) are not applicable, retires from the service on account of any bodily or mental infirmity which permanently incapacitates him for the service, he may be granted invalid pension in accordance with rule 49: Provided that a Government servant, who retires from service on account of any bodily or mental infirmity which permanently incapacitates him for the service before completing qualifying service of ten years, may also be granted invalid pension in accordance with sub-rule (2) of rule 49 subject to the conditions that the Government servant- (a) has been examined by the appropriate medical authority either before his appointment or after his appointment to the Government service and declared fit by such medical authority for Government service; and (b) fulfills all other conditions mentioned in this rule for grant of invalid pension”; (ii) in rule 49, for sub-rule (2), the following sub-rule shall be substituted, namely: – “(2) Subject to the proviso to sub-rule (2) of rule 38, in the case of a Government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules after completing qualifying service of not less than ten years, the amount of pension shall be calculated at fifty per cent of emoluments or average emoluments, whichever is more beneficial to him, subject to a minimum of nine thousand rupees per mensem and maximum of one lakh twenty five thousand rupees per mensem.” The said amendments having been placed before the Court, the Court was of the view that further clarification was required which has now been made by a clarificatory Office Memorandum bearing No. 21/01/2016- P&PW(F) dated 12.2.2019 in the following terms:- “2. In this connection, it is clarified that the condition of qualifying service of ten years for grant of pension under Rule 49(2) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 shall not be applicable in the case of a Government servant retiring on Invalid Pension on account of any bodily or mental infirmity, under Rule 38. Accordingly, Invalid Pension at the rate of 50% of emoluments or average emoluments, whichever is more beneficial, subject to a minimum of nine thousand rupees per mensem and maximum of one lakh twenty five thousand rupees per mensem, shall be payable to a Government servant who retires under Rule 38 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 even before completing a qualifying service of ten years.” (3)Having perused the aforesaid clarification, we are of the view that the matter now stands adequately covered and would be governed by provisions of the amended Rules 38 and 49 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, which would be applied to all eligible cases. The special leave petition consequently shall stand disposed of in the above terms.” SAPNA GOYAL 2026.09.09 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-28471-2026 (O&M) -4- 7. Once, as per the settled principle of law settled in P.A. Thomas (supra), it is well established that the invalid pension is admissible even prior to the completion of 10 years of qualifying service. 8. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the claim has been raised by the respondent No.1 after an inordinate delay of 42 years in filing the Original Application. Qua this argument, it may be noticed that as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 4100 OF 2022 titled as “M.L. Patil (Dead) through L.Rs vs. The State of Goa and another” passed in the claim regarding pension cannot be denied merely on ground of delay as same is a recurring cause of action. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:- “3. Having heard Shri Rahul Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Shri Ravindra Lokhande, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent – State of Goa and considering the fact that even by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has held that action of the State Government in requiring the original petitioners to retire at the age of 58 years or not permitting them to continue in their service upto the age of 60 years is illegal and null and void, we are of the view that the High Court has erred in observing that the appellant will not be entitled to any arrears of pension and the pension at the revised rates will become payable only from 1st January, 2020. As such, the High Court may be right and/or justified in denying any salary for the period of two extra years to the writ petitioners if they would have continued in service, on the ground of delay. However, as far as the pension is concerned, it is a continuous cause of action. There is no justification at all for denying the arrears of pension as if they would have been retired/superannuated at the age of 60 years. There is no justification at all by the High Court to deny the pension at the revised rates and payable only from 1 st January, 2020. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is required to be modified to the aforesaid extent. 4. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present Appeal Succeeds in Part. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court to the extent of denying any arrears of pension and holding that the appellant shall be entitled to the pension at the revised rates only from 1st January, 2020 is hereby quashed and set aside. It is held and ordered that the appellant – original writ petitioner shall be entitled to pension at the revised rates from the date he attains the age of 60 years. Now the arrears accordingly shall SAPNA GOYAL 2026.09.09 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-28471-2026 (O&M) -5- be paid to the appellant within a period of four weeks from today. Present Appeal is Partly Allowed to the aforesaid extent. In the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.” 9. The argument regarding grant of benefit prospectively, it may be noticed that a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.28442 of 2023 titled as Union of India and others vs. Sandeep Kumar and another, decided on 07.01.2025 has already set aside the said condition imposed by the Government of India that the grant of invalid pension will be prospective in nature starting from 04.01.2019 onwards keeping in view the judgment in P.A. Thomas (supra), which has also been noticed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and held that soldiers invalidated from service even prior to 04.01.2019 are also entitled for the benefit of invalid pension. 10. Accordingly, all the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are contrary to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in above noted cases. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners-Union of India has not been able to rebut the said settled principles of law as well as the facts mentioned hereinbefore. 12. No other argument has been raised. 13. Hence, in the absence of any perversity being pointed out in the impugned order dated 20.02.2025 (Annexure P-1) either on the basis of the facts or the settled principle of law, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 15. Civil miscellaneous application pending if any, also stands disposed of. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE 03-09-2026 Sapna Goyal (MINDERJEET YADAV) JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/ reasoned: YES Whether reportable: NO SAPNA GOYAL 2026.09.09 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document