Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jammu and Kashmir · body

2026 DAILYLAW 2308 (JK)

JASWANT SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA TH. SECRETARY MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NEW DELHI AND OTHERS

RP/30/2026 · 2026-07-28

Mohd Yousuf Wani

Review Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU RP No. 30/2026 in WP (C) No. 1534/2024 Jaswant Singh .....Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through :- Mr. Chakshu Sharma, Advocate v/s UOI and Others .....Respondent(s) Through :- Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI with Mr. Karan Sharma, CGSC CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD. YOUSUF WANI, JUDGE (Through virtual mode) ORDER 28.07.2026 CM No. 3470/2026 1. This is a petition, filed by one Ex Lance Naik Jaswant Singh seeking review of the judgment dated 02.04.2025 passed in WP (C) No. 1534/2024 titled “Union of India and Others vs. Ex Lance Naik Jaswant Singh”, whereby this Court has disposed of a petition in the light of Pension Regulations for Army, Part-I (2008). 2. The review petition is delayed by 378 days and, therefore, instant application has been filed seeking condonation of delay. 3. Having considered the application, particularly, in the light of merits of the review petition, we are of the considered opinion that justice would be served if we condone the delay and take the review petition for consideration on merits. 4. The application is, therefore, allowed and the delay of 378 days in filing the review petition is condoned. Sr. No. 02 2 RP No. 30/2026 1. Issue notice to the respondents, which is waived by Mr. Karan Sharma, learned CGSC on behalf of the respondents. 2. It has been pointed by learned counsel for the review petitioner that the review petitioner, having retired in the year 2004 was governed by the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 and not by the Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008. He submits that this Court erroneously considered the matter as if the petitioner was covered by the Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008. 3. Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned DSGI appearing for the respondents does not dispute the aforesaid factual position. 4. Having considered the rival contentions and perused the order under review, we are convinced that the judgment passed by us dated 02.04.2025 (supra) suffers from an error apparent on the face of it. 5. The review petition is, accordingly, allowed and order dated 02.04.2025 is recalled. 6. Let WP (C) No. 1534/2024 be come up for consideration on 02.09.2026. (Mohd. Yousuf Wani) (Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Chief Justice (A) JAMMU 28.07.2026 Manik