CWP-18901-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (154) CWP-18901-2026 Date of Decision : 01.07.2026 Union of India and Others ...Petitioners Versus Ex Hav Zora Singh and Others ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Sushant Kareer, Advocate, for the petitioners-Union of India. *** Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral) 1. In the present civil writ petition, the challenge is to the order dated 10.03.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, by which, for the purpose of computing the pension admissible to respondent No.1, the service of the respondent No.1 has been directed to be treated as 16 years instead of actual service of 15 years 9 months and 11 days. 2. Learned counsel submits that though, as per the instructions dated 17.01.2023 issued by the Government of India, personnel having rendered more than nine months of service with armed forces in a year, the same is to be rounded off to one complete year but the said instruction has wrongly been applied to give the benefit of rounding off the service rendered to one complete year to the respondent, which is incorrect. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record with his able assistance. SHUBHAM 2026.07.07 10:58 I am the author of this document CWP-18901-2026 -2- 4. Once, as per the instructions dated 17.01.2023 issued by the Government of India personnel having rendered more than nine months of service in a particular year is to be treated as having completed one complete year in service, the grant of benefit of rounding off/condoning the short fall by the Tribunal keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case when, the total actual service rendered by the respondent was 15 years 9 months 11 days, the same is to be treated as 16 years and impugned order passed by the Tribunal cannot be treated as perverse. 5. Further, nothing has come up on record to show that the instructions of the Government of India which has been relied upon by the Tribunal have not been made applicable upon the other pensioner who has retired prior to the said date, hence even the argument raised that the said instruction were later withdrawn stands defeated. 6. Keeping in view the above, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the present petition. 7. Dismissed. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE July 01, 2026 Shubham Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SHUBHAM 2026.07.07 10:58 I am the author of this document