Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010022892025 2026:GAU-AS:7379-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/835/2025 1.THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SENA BHAWAN, NEW DELHI 2: THE OFFICER IN CHARGE RECORDS EME C/O 56 APO PIN- 900453 3: THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL PERSONNEL SERVICES PS-4(D) ADJUTANT GENERALS BRANCH IHQ OF MOD (ARMY) DHQ NEW DELHI 4: THE PRINCIPAL CONTROLLER OF DEFENSE ACCOUNTS (PENSION) ALLAHABAD UTTAR PRADESH VERSUS NO. 14513258 X EX-NK DHARANI GOHAIN VILL- NAPAMUA GAON, P.O.-KAMARGAON, DIST-GOLAGHAT, ASSAM, PIN-785619 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, Senior Advocate/Deputy Solicitor General of India assisted by Ms. L. Devi, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. A.R. Tahbildar, Advocate. –B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 27.05.2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned Senior Page No.# 2/4 Advocate/Deputy Solicitor General of India for the petitioners/Union of India & 3 Ors. and Mr. A.R. Tahbildar, learned Advocate for the sole respondent. 2. The Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 30.05.2022 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Guwahati (hereinafter to be referred as the “Tribunal”) in O.A. No.27/2020, whereby, relaxing the minimum service period for qualifying the respondent for grant of pension, it has been directed that the respondent be paid pension within a period of three months from the date of passing of the order by the Tribunal and since the order was being passed after 33 years of his discharge from service, the arrears would be restricted to three years prior to the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 29.06.2020. 3. Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate/Deputy Solicitor General of India submits that no reason has been assigned by the Tribunal for such condonation after 33 years of the discharge of the respondent. 4. The respondent had joined the Indian Army sometimes in the year 1973 and was discharged on 30.06.1987 at his own request, after completing 13 years 11 months and 6 days of service. He sought voluntary discharge because of some domestic problems. 5. Under the Pension Regulations for the Army,1961, the minimum qualifying service for pension is 15 years. Since he fell short of such qualifying period of service, he was not granted any pension at the time of his discharge. Page No.# 3/4 6. It appears that after 33 years of his discharge, the respondent had approached the authorities for grant of pension, which was rejected. He, therefore, approached the Armed Forces Tribunal, claiming that the shortfall in his service for grant of pension benefit ought to be condoned. 7. The Tribunal, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. -Vs- Surinder Singh Parmar :: (2015) 3 SCC 404, condoned the shortfall and directed for grant of pension to the respondent but restricting the payment of arrears only from three years prior to date of filing of the Original Application before the Tribunal. 8. Mr. Choudhury has submitted that the facts of the case of Surinder Singh Parmar (supra) are distinguishable from the present case because it dealt with Navy Pension Regulation. The Army Pension Rules are governed by the relevant Regulation (paragraph 125), which explicitly prohibits condonation of shortfall for persons discharged at their own request. 9. We have examined paragraph 125 of the Regulations, wherein there is no such explicit proscription in condonation of the shortfall in the period of service for grant of pension to a discharged employee. 10. Though we are a bit surprised that such interference was made by the Tribunal even when the respondent had approached it after 33 years of his discharge but considering the fact that the shortfall is condonable and that the respondent is now at the fag end of his life, we do not wish to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Page No.# 4/4 11. The writ petition stands dismissed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant