CWP-28357-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 127 CWP-28357-2026(O&M) Decided on : 03.09.2026 UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ...PETITIONERS Versus NO 3372232W SEPOY MOHAN SINGH AND ANOTHER . .. RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MINDERJEET YADAV PRESENT: Ms. Neha Sharma, Senior Panel Counsel for the petitioners. **** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral) 1. In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the order dated 16.07.2025 (Annexure P-1) in OA No.505 of 2023 titled as Mohan Singh v/s UOI and others passed by respondent No. 2-Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) by which, the benefit of invalid pension has been granted in favour of the respondent No.1 w.e.f. 04.01.2019 till 17.05.2024 and ordinary family pension to the widow from day following date of death of her husband. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners argues that for the grant of benefit of invalid pension, the personnel concerned should POONAM 2026.09.10 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-28357-2026 have rendered a minimum 10 years of service, which minimum period of service required has not been rendered by respondent No.1 in the present case and approach the Court after 47 years after the claim for disability pension was duly rejected. Therefore, the grant of benefit of invalid pension to respondent No.1 and ordinary family pension thereafter, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, is incorrect. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that even the Medical Board has assessed the disability as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, and once disability suffered by respondent No.1 is neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, benefit of invalid pension cannot be granted. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. 5. The grievance raised at hands of 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:- 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 – POONAM 2026.09.10 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-28357-2026 (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 SLP (c) 20339/2011 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 POONAM 2026.09.10 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-28357-2026 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.” 6. With regard to the grievance of the petitioners qua the claim having been raised after a delay of 47 years, as per the settled law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.4100 of 2022 titled as Shri M.L. Patil (Dead) through LRs vs. The State of Goa and another, decided on 20.05.2022 wherein, it has been observed that pension is a continuous cause of action. The relevant paragraphs 3 and 4 of the said judgment are as under:- “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 POONAM 2026.09.10 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-28357-2026 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 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.” 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that since disability suffered by respondent No.1 is neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, benefit of invalid pension could not have been granted to respondent No.1, on being asked whether any such rule exists which puts as embargo on grant of invalid pension if disability assessed is neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, learned counsel has not been able to show any such rule. 8. No other argument raised. 9. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances, the arguments which have been raised at the hands of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted keeping in view the settled principle of law noticed hereinbefore. The impugned order dated 16.07.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Tribunal has not been shown to be perverse in any manner, the POONAM 2026.09.10 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-28357-2026 writ petition is dismissed. 10. Civil miscellaneous application pending if any, also stands disposed of. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE (MINDERJEET YADAV) 03.09.2026 JUDGE Poonam Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No POONAM 2026.09.10 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document