IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 135 UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS EX. No.13748428W NK HOSHIAR SINGH AND ANOTHER CORAM: HON’BLE HON’BLE MR. Present : Ms. Shalini Atri HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI 1. In 31.07.2024 (Annexure P India (petitioners herein) to grant service pension for service in the DSC to respondent No.1 by condoning shortfall of considering his service as 15 complete years as qualifying service judgment in Original Application No.1238 of 2016 with MA No.923 of 2016 decided on 01.10.2019 titled Smt. Shama Kaur vs. Union of India and others which judgment has also been relied upon at a later point of time by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, an appeal preferred by the Union of India, whereby, an interim order therefore, till the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court No.27725-2024, is passed the operation of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal granting the relief to the respondents may kindly be stayed. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. Date of decision: UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Versus EX. No.13748428W NK HOSHIAR SINGH AND ANOTHER HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Ms. Shalini Atri, Senior Panel Counsel **** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (oral) In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the order dated (Annexure P-3) by which, directions were given to the Union of India (petitioners herein) to grant service pension for service in the DSC to respondent No.1 by condoning shortfall of his service as 15 complete years as qualifying service Original Application No.1238 of 2016 with MA No.923 of 2016 decided on 01.10.2019 titled Smt. Shama Kaur vs. Union of India and others which judgment has also been implemented but, when the said judgment was relied upon at a later point of time by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, an appeal preferred by the Union of India, whereby, an interim order therefore, till the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court 2024, is passed the operation of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal granting the relief to the respondents may kindly be stayed. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.28464 of 2025 Date of decision: 22.09.2025 …. Petitioners Versus EX. No.13748428W NK HOSHIAR SINGH AND ANOTHER …. Respondents HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI VIKAS SURI Senior Panel Counsel for the petitioners/UOI. , the challenge is to the order dated ) by which, directions were given to the Union of India (petitioners herein) to grant service pension for service in the DSC to respondent No.1 by condoning shortfall of 08 months and 01 day and his service as 15 complete years as qualifying service as per the Original Application No.1238 of 2016 with MA No.923 of 2016 decided on 01.10.2019 titled Smt. Shama Kaur vs. Union of India and others, implemented but, when the said judgment was relied upon at a later point of time by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, an appeal preferred by the Union of India, whereby, an interim order was granted and therefore, till the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (C) 2024, is passed the operation of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal granting the relief to the respondents may kindly be stayed. , the challenge is to the order dated ) by which, directions were given to the Union of India (petitioners herein) to grant service pension for service in the DSC to and as per the Original Application No.1238 of 2016 with MA No.923 of 2016 , implemented but, when the said judgment was relied upon at a later point of time by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, an appeal granted and of India in SLP (C) 2024, is passed the operation of the impugned order passed by the Jyoti 2025.09.26 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.28464 of 202 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the recor 3. The issue which has been raised for consideration is whether, the benefit of condonation of shortfall in qualifying service to the extent of 12 months so as to make the respondent No. pension can be granted in favour of an officer, who retired prior to the completion of 15 years of mandatory service which is a condition precedent to attain the benefit of pension. The prayer of the petitioners is that t respondent No. working in the Defense Security Corps (DSC) wherein, 15 years of service which is a condition precedent for grant of service pension. 4. It may be noticed tha before the Principal Bench of the Armed Force Tribunal in (supra), wherein the benefit of condonation of the service period upto 12 months for the purpose of granting service pension was allowed, judgment has already Shama Kaur, who is similarly situated as respondent No.1. 5. Though, at a later point of time, the same judgment upon by the Delhi High Court while deciding a b including Writ Petition (C) No.2986 of 2024 decided on 04.09.2024 titled Union of India and others vs. EX/NK Chinna Vediyappan reliance was also placed on respondent-Arm Supreme Court of India against said order of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CWP No.28464 of 2025 We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record with his able assistance. The issue which has been raised for consideration is whether, the benefit of condonation of shortfall in qualifying service to the extent of 12 months so as to make the respondent No.1 eligible for the grant of service pension can be granted in favour of an officer, who retired prior to the completion of 15 years of mandatory service which is a condition precedent to attain the benefit of pension. The prayer of the petitioners is that t respondent No.1 is claiming the benefit of service pension while he was working in the Defense Security Corps (DSC) wherein, 15 years of service which is a condition precedent for grant of service pension. It may be noticed that the said issue came up for consideration before the Principal Bench of the Armed Force Tribunal in , wherein the benefit of condonation of the service period upto 12 months for the purpose of granting service pension was allowed, judgment has already attained finality and the benefit had been extended to Shama Kaur, who is similarly situated as respondent No.1. Though, at a later point of time, the same judgment upon by the Delhi High Court while deciding a b Writ Petition (C) No.2986 of 2024 decided on 04.09.2024 titled Union of India and others vs. EX/NK Chinna Vediyappan reliance was also placed on Shama Kaur’s case (supra) Army personnel and on an appeal preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India against said order of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in -2- We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have d with his able assistance. The issue which has been raised for consideration is whether, the benefit of condonation of shortfall in qualifying service to the extent of 12 eligible for the grant of service pension can be granted in favour of an officer, who retired prior to the completion of 15 years of mandatory service which is a condition precedent to attain the benefit of pension. The prayer of the petitioners is that the is claiming the benefit of service pension while he was working in the Defense Security Corps (DSC) wherein, he has not completed 15 years of service which is a condition precedent for grant of service pension. t the said issue came up for consideration before the Principal Bench of the Armed Force Tribunal in Shama Kaur’s case , wherein the benefit of condonation of the service period upto 12 months for the purpose of granting service pension was allowed, which and the benefit had been extended to Shama Kaur, who is similarly situated as respondent No.1. Though, at a later point of time, the same judgment was relied upon by the Delhi High Court while deciding a bunch of writ petitions Writ Petition (C) No.2986 of 2024 decided on 04.09.2024 titled Union of India and others vs. EX/NK Chinna Vediyappan, wherein, the Shama Kaur’s case (supra) to adjudicate claim of y personnel and on an appeal preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India against said order of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in SLP We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have The issue which has been raised for consideration is whether, the benefit of condonation of shortfall in qualifying service to the extent of 12 eligible for the grant of service pension can be granted in favour of an officer, who retired prior to the completion of 15 years of mandatory service which is a condition precedent to he is claiming the benefit of service pension while he was completed t the said issue came up for consideration Shama Kaur’s case , wherein the benefit of condonation of the service period upto 12 which and the benefit had been extended to relied unch of writ petitions Writ Petition (C) No.2986 of 2024 decided on 04.09.2024 titled , wherein, the to adjudicate claim of y personnel and on an appeal preferred before the Hon’ble SLP Jyoti 2025.09.26 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.28464 of 202 (C) No.27725- Vediyappan, vide order dated 02.12.2024 implement the said order, which has been made the basis by petitioners while asking for stay of impugned order. 6. Now the question which arises for consideration is whether petition is also liable to be adjourned so as to case or, the adjudication upon the writ petition filed by the petitioners can be undertaken. 7. It is relevant to mention here that as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Jammu and Kashmir National Conference and another SC 1140, the following observations have been made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India: Courts not deciding cases on judgment of this Court on this subject is either referred to a larger Bench or a review petition relating thereto is pending. We have also come across examples of High Courts refusing deference to judgments of this Court on the Coordinate Bench has doubted its correctness. In this regard, we lay down the position in law. We make it absolutely clear that the High Courts will proceed to decide matters on the basis of the law as it stands. It is not open, unless Court, to await an outcome of a reference or a review petition, as the case may be. It is also not open to a High Court to refuse to follow a judgment by stating that it has been doubted by a later Coordinate Bench. In any cas judgments by Benches of equal strength of this Court, it is the earlier one which is to be followed by the High Courts, as held by a 5 Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 6805. The will do so with careful regard to the facts and circumstances of the case before it.” CWP No.28464 of 2025 2024, titled Union of India and others vs. Ex. NK Chinna Vediyappan, vide order dated 02.12.2024, the direc implement the said order, which has been made the basis by petitioners while asking for stay of impugned order. Now the question which arises for consideration is whether also liable to be adjourned so as to case or, the adjudication upon the writ petition filed by the petitioners can be It is relevant to mention here that as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Union Territory of Ladakh and Jammu and Kashmir National Conference and another , the following observations have been made by the Hon’ble Supreme “35. We are seeing before us judgments and orders by High Courts not deciding cases on judgment of this Court on this subject is either referred to a larger Bench or a review petition relating thereto is pending. We have also come across examples of High Courts refusing deference to judgments of this Court on the Coordinate Bench has doubted its correctness. In this regard, we lay down the position in law. We make it absolutely clear that the High Courts will proceed to decide matters on the basis of the law as it stands. It is not open, unless Court, to await an outcome of a reference or a review petition, as the case may be. It is also not open to a High Court to refuse to follow a judgment by stating that it has been doubted by a later Coordinate Bench. In any case, when faced with conflicting judgments by Benches of equal strength of this Court, it is the earlier one which is to be followed by the High Courts, as held by a 5-Judge Bench in National Insurance Company Limited v Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 6805. The will do so with careful regard to the facts and circumstances of the case before it.” -3- 2024, titled Union of India and others vs. Ex. NK Chinna , the direction has been given not to implement the said order, which has been made the basis by petitioners while Now the question which arises for consideration is whether the also liable to be adjourned so as to await the said decision in said case or, the adjudication upon the writ petition filed by the petitioners can be It is relevant to mention here that as per the judgment of the Union Territory of Ladakh and others vs. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference and another, 2023 SCC Online , the following observations have been made by the Hon’ble Supreme “35. We are seeing before us judgments and orders by High the ground that the leading judgment of this Court on this subject is either referred to a larger Bench or a review petition relating thereto is pending. We have also come across examples of High Courts refusing deference to judgments of this Court on the score that a later Coordinate Bench has doubted its correctness. In this regard, we lay down the position in law. We make it absolutely clear that the High Courts will proceed to decide matters on the basis of the law as it stands. It is not open, unless specifically directed by this Court, to await an outcome of a reference or a review petition, as the case may be. It is also not open to a High Court to refuse to follow a judgment by stating that it has been doubted by a later e, when faced with conflicting judgments by Benches of equal strength of this Court, it is the earlier one which is to be followed by the High Courts, as held by Judge Bench in National Insurance Company Limited v Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 6805. The High Courts, of course, will do so with careful regard to the facts and circumstances of 2024, titled Union of India and others vs. Ex. NK Chinna tion has been given not to implement the said order, which has been made the basis by petitioners while the await the said decision in said case or, the adjudication upon the writ petition filed by the petitioners can be It is relevant to mention here that as per the judgment of the others vs. 2023 SCC Online , the following observations have been made by the Hon’ble Supreme “35. We are seeing before us judgments and orders by High the ground that the leading judgment of this Court on this subject is either referred to a larger Bench or a review petition relating thereto is pending. We have also come across examples of High Courts refusing score that a later Coordinate Bench has doubted its correctness. In this regard, we lay down the position in law. We make it absolutely clear that the High Courts will proceed to decide matters on the basis of the law specifically directed by this Court, to await an outcome of a reference or a review petition, as the case may be. It is also not open to a High Court to refuse to follow a judgment by stating that it has been doubted by a later e, when faced with conflicting judgments by Benches of equal strength of this Court, it is the earlier one which is to be followed by the High Courts, as held by Judge Bench in National Insurance Company Limited v High Courts, of course, will do so with careful regard to the facts and circumstances of Jyoti 2025.09.26 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.28464 of 202 8. A bare perusal of the above would show that merely because Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that one matter is pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the law that has already been settled on the said issue on an earlier occa and same has to be given due consideration while adjudicating the claim. 9. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to dispute the fact that in by the Delhi High Court, the benefit was granted even to those officers, who had more than one year of service deficit, which needed to be condoned to get the pensionary benefits which is not the case in even in the present petition. Hence, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is whether the condonation of service period beyond one year can be granted or not, so as to grant the benefit of service pension which 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners has conceded the fact that the issue raised in the present petition was decided in favour of the respondent No.1 on the basis of the judgment in similar relief ha judgment stands implemented. Once the issue in present case is identical to one which has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which fact has gone unrebutted, merely waiting for the d Court of India in SLP (C) No. 27725 present case, will not serve any purpose especially in view of the law laid CWP No.28464 of 2025 A bare perusal of the above would show that merely because Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that one matter is pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the law that has already been settled on the said issue on an earlier occa and same has to be given due consideration while adjudicating the claim. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to dispute the fact that in EX/NK Chinna Vediyappan’s case (supra) High Court, the benefit was granted even to those officers, who had more than one year of service deficit, which needed to be condoned to get the pensionary benefits which is not the case in even in the present petition. Hence, the issue which is pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is whether the condonation of service period beyond one year can be granted or not, so as to grant the benefit of service pension which is not the issue in the present case. The learned counsel for the petitioners has conceded the fact that the issue raised in the present petition was decided in favour of the respondent on the basis of the judgment in Shama Kaur’s case (supra) similar relief had already been granted has already attained finality and the said judgment stands implemented. Once the issue in present case is identical to one which has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which fact has gone unrebutted, merely waiting for the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (C) No. 27725-2024 so as to decide upon the issue in present case, will not serve any purpose especially in view of the law laid -4- A bare perusal of the above would show that merely because Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that one matter is pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the law that has already been settled on the said issue on an earlier occasion cannot be ignored and same has to be given due consideration while adjudicating the claim. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able EX/NK Chinna Vediyappan’s case (supra) passed High Court, the benefit was granted even to those officers, who had more than one year of service deficit, which needed to be condoned to get the pensionary benefits which is not the case in Shama Kaur’s case (supra) or the issue which is pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is whether the condonation of service period beyond one year can be granted or not, so as to grant the benefit is not the issue in the present case. The learned counsel for the petitioners has conceded the fact that the issue raised in the present petition was decided in favour of the respondent Shama Kaur’s case (supra), wherein the dy been granted has already attained finality and the said judgment stands implemented. Once the issue in present case is identical to one which has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which fact has ecision of the Hon’ble Supreme 2024 so as to decide upon the issue in present case, will not serve any purpose especially in view of the law laid A bare perusal of the above would show that merely because Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that one matter is pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the law that has sion cannot be ignored Further, the learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able passed High Court, the benefit was granted even to those officers, who had more than one year of service deficit, which needed to be condoned to get or the issue which is pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is whether the condonation of service period beyond one year can be granted or not, so as to grant the benefit The learned counsel for the petitioners has conceded the fact that the issue raised in the present petition was decided in favour of the respondent , wherein the dy been granted has already attained finality and the said judgment stands implemented. Once the issue in present case is identical to one which has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which fact has ecision of the Hon’ble Supreme 2024 so as to decide upon the issue in present case, will not serve any purpose especially in view of the law laid Jyoti 2025.09.26 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.28464 of 202 down in Union Territory of Ladakh’s case (supra) that the claim of the respondent No.1 is covered by (supra), is not disputed, no ground is made out for keeping the present petition in abeyance for adjudication. 11. Further, the Coordinate Bench of this Court while deciding CWP 8886-2025 decided on 24.04.2025 titled Naik Kuldeep Singh upon Shama Kaur’s case (supra) covered by Shama Kaur’s case (su 12. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances as well as the settled principle of law as noticed hereinbefore, as it has not been shown that the order passed by the Tribunal is perverse either to the facts on record o settled principle of law, no interference at the hands of this Court is needed. 13. No ground is made out for interference by this Court. 14. The present writ petition is dismissed. September 22, 2025 Jyoti-IV CWP No.28464 of 2025 Union Territory of Ladakh’s case (supra) that the claim of the respondent No.1 is covered by , is not disputed, no ground is made out for keeping the present petition in abeyance for adjudication. Further, the Coordinate Bench of this Court while deciding CWP 2025 decided on 24.04.2025 titled Union of India and others vs. Ex. Naik Kuldeep Singh, after noticing the said fact, have decided the claim based Shama Kaur’s case (supra), wherein also, the fact that the same was Shama Kaur’s case (supra), could not be rebutted. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances as well as the settled principle of law as noticed hereinbefore, as it has not been shown that the order passed by the Tribunal is perverse either to the facts on record o settled principle of law, no interference at the hands of this Court is needed. No ground is made out for interference by this Court. The present writ petition is dismissed. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI September 22, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No. Whether reportable : Yes/No -5- Union Territory of Ladakh’s case (supra). Once, the factual assertion that the claim of the respondent No.1 is covered by Shama Kaur’s case , is not disputed, no ground is made out for keeping the present petition Further, the Coordinate Bench of this Court while deciding CWP- Union of India and others vs. Ex. , after noticing the said fact, have decided the claim based , wherein also, the fact that the same was , could not be rebutted. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances as well as the settled principle of law as noticed hereinbefore, as it has not been shown that the order passed by the Tribunal is perverse either to the facts on record or settled principle of law, no interference at the hands of this Court is needed. No ground is made out for interference by this Court. The present writ petition is dismissed. HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE (VIKAS SURI) JUDGE Yes/No. Yes/No ion Shama Kaur’s case , is not disputed, no ground is made out for keeping the present petition - Union of India and others vs. Ex. , after noticing the said fact, have decided the claim based , wherein also, the fact that the same was Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances as well as the settled principle of law as noticed hereinbefore, as it has not been shown that r ) Jyoti 2025.09.26 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document