HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP (C) No. 165/2026 Date of pronouncement: 02.02.2026 Date of uploading :02.02.2026 1. Union of India through its Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi-110011. 2. Additional Director General Personnel Services, Adjutant General’s Branch, Integrated HQ of Ministry of Defence (Army), DHQ PO, New Delhi-11001. 3. Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension), Draupadi Ghat, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh. 4. The Officer-in-Charge, The Punjab Regiment Records, Pin 908761 C/O 56 APO. .....Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through :- Mr. Rohan Nanda, CGSC v/s Ex RFN Raghubir Singh, S/o Late Shri Khazur Singh R/o Village Panthi & PO Samba, Tehsil District Samba (J&K)-184121 .....Respondent(s) Through :- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE ORDER(ORAL) 02.02.2026 1. Impugned in this petition, filed by the Union of India under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is an order dated 25.07.2025 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Srinagar Bench at Jammu [“the Tribunal”] in OA No. 13/2023 titled “Ex. Rfn Raghubir Singh vs. Union of India & Others”, whereby the respondent a Territorial Army personnel had been treated at par with regular army personnel and has been held entitled to disability pension. Sr. No. 50 2 2. The issue raised by the petitioners in this petition is no longer res integra and is fully covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Pani Ram vs. Union of India and Others” AIR 2022 SC 182. 3. In the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has in para 20 of the judgment, held thus: - It is thus clear that the ETF is established as an additional company for 130 Infantry Battalion of Territorial Army. It is not in dispute that the other officers or enrolled persons working in the Territorial Army are entitled to disability pension under Regulation No. 173 read with Regulation No. 292 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961. When the appellant is enrolled as a member of ETF which is a company for 130 Infantry Battalion (Territorial Army), we see no reason as to why the appellant was denied the disability pension. Specifically so, when the Medical Board and COI have found that the injury sustained by the appellant was attributable to the Military Service and it was not due to his own negligence. 4. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (Sanjay Parihar) (Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Judge JAMMU 02.02.2026 Manik Whether this order is reportable: Yes/No Whether this order is speaking: Yes/No