UNION OF INDIA vs NO 8369163-P SEP/PO GANESH PRASAD RANA
- Court
- Uttarakhand High Court
UKHC010075392025
2026:UHC:9648-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY
WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 167 OF 2025
TH
27 OCTOBER, 2026
Union of India and others …… Petitioners
Versus
No.8369163-P SEP/PO
Ganesh Prasad Rana …… Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 170 OF 2025
Union of India and others …… Petitioners
Versus
SL-04466A Lt. Col. Sagar Shahi (Retd.) …… Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 171 OF 2025
Union of India and others …… Petitioners
Versus
JC-531482K Sub. Maj.
Dhirendra Singh Aswal (Retd.) …… Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 178 OF 2025
Union of India and others …… Petitioners
Versus
No. 4188070M Ex. Hav.
Devendra Singh …… Respondent
1
UKHC010075392025
2026:UHC:9648-DB
WITH
WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 183 OF 2025
Union of India and others …… Petitioners
Versus
No. 1471011-A Ex. Naik
Shamsher Singh …… Respondent
Counsel for the petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Sharma, learned
Standing Counsel for the Union of
India
Counsel for the respondent(s) : --
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT: (per Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari, A.C.J.)
1) Union of India has filed these writ petitions
challenging the judgment rendered by Armed Forces
Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow (Circuit Bench,
Nainital), whereby respondent’s claim for disability
element of pension, has been allowed.
2) Since common questions of law and facts are
involved in these petitions, therefore, the same are
being heard and decided together for the sake of
brevity and convenience.
3) The facts of Writ Petition (S/B) No. 167 of
2025 alone are being considered and discussed.
2
UKHC010075392025
2026:UHC:9648-DB
4) Judgment dated 12.03.2024, rendered by
Armed Forces Tribunal, in O.A. No. 1124 of 2023 (No.
8369163-P Sep/PO Ganesh Prasad Rana Vs Union of
India and others) is put to challenge in this writ
petition.
5) Operative portion of the impugned judgment
render by learned Tribunal is reproduced below:-
“8. In view of settled position of law on
attributability, we find that the RMB has denied
attributability to the applicant only by endorsing that
the disabilities (i) Stroke Lt Side Thalmoganglionic
Bleed, (ii) Primary Hypertension, (iii) DM Type-II and
(iv) B/L Early Posterial Sub Capsular Cataract with Mild
to Moderate NPDR Both Eye are neither attributable to
nor aggravated by military service on the ground of
onset of disabilities between 2015 to 2017 while
posted in peace locations, therefore, applicant is not
entitled to disability element of pension. However,
considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
we are of the view that this reasoning of the Release
Medical Board for denying disability element of
pension to applicant is not convincing and doesn’t
reflect the complete truth on the matter. Peace
Stations have their own pressure of rigorous military
training and associated stress and strain of military
service. The applicant had joined the Army on
deputation on 07.06.1980 and the disabilities had
started after more than 35 years of Army service i.e.
in the year 2015 onwards. We are, therefore, of the
considered opinion that the benefit of doubt in these
circumstances should be given to the applicant in view
Dharamvir Singh
of (supra), and the disabilities of the
applicant should be considered as aggravated by
military service.
9. In view of the above, the Original Application
No. 1124 of 2023 deserves to be allowed, hence
allowed. The impugned order dated 31.01.2023
(Annexure A-3 to O.A.) rejecting the applicant’s claim
for grant of disability element of pension, is set aside.
The disabilities of the applicant i.e. (i) Stroke Lt Side
3
UKHC010075392025
2026:UHC:9648-DB
Thalmoganglionic Bleed, (ii) Primary Hypertension, (iii)
DM Type-II and (iv) B/L Early Posterial Sub Capsular
Cataract with Mild to Moderate NPDR Both Eyes of the
applicant are held as aggravated by Army Service.
The applicant is entitled to get disability element @
100% for life from the next date of his discharge i.e.
w.e.f. 18.11.2017. The respondents are directed to
grant disability element of pension to the applicant @
100% for life w.e.f. 18.11.2017.
10. It may also be observed that claim for pension
is based on continuing wrong and relief can be granted
if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source
of injury. In the case of Shiv Dass vs. Union of India ,
2007 (3) SLR 445
reported in , in Para-9 the Hon’ble
Apex Court has observed as under:-
“In the case of pension the cause of action
actually continues from month to month. That,
however, cannot be a ground to overlook delay
in filing the petition. It would depend upon the
fact of each case. If petition is filed beyond a
reasonable period say three years normally the
Court would reject the same or restrict the
relief which could be granted to a reasonable
period of about three years . The High Court
did not examine whether on merit appellant
had a case. If on merits it would have found
that there was no scope for interference, it
would have dismissed the writ petition on that
score alone.”
11. Since this O.A. was filed with delay and delay
has been condoned by this Tribunal, as such, in view
of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
Shiv Dass
case of (supra), we are of the considered
view that benefit of disability element of pension may
be made applicable to the applicant from three
preceding years from the date of filing of the O.A.
12. In view of above, the O.A. succeeds and is
hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to grant
disability element of pension to the applicant @ 100%
for life w.e.f. three preceding years from the date of
filing of this O.A. This O.A. was filed on 18.09.2023.
This order shall be complied with by the respondents
within four months from the date of presentation of a
certified copy of this order failing which the applicant
shall be further entitled to interest at the rate of 8%
per annum from the due date, till date of actual
payment.”
4
UKHC010075392025
2026:UHC:9648-DB
6) The view taken by learned Tribunal is in
consonance with the law of the land as declared in the
Union of India Vs Col. N.C. Isaac (Retd.), 2026
case of
INSC 993
.
7) A co-ordinate bench of this Court has decided
a batch of similar writ petitions filed by Union of India
vide judgment dated 17.09.2026, the leading case
being Writ Petition (S/B) No. 513 of 2024, titled as
“Union of India & others Vs Mahipal Singh”.
8) For the reasons indicated in the judgment
dated 17.09.2026, rendered in WPSB No. 513 of 2024,
we do not find any scope for interference in the matter.
Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed.
9) No order as to costs.
_________________________
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, A.C.J.
_________________
SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
TH
Dt: 27 OCTOBER, 2026
Negi
Digitally signed by HIMANSHU NEGI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=bb3b60774012c1ef1dae20d13a
af116e73351fdaf6878326386908a7f90d5
757, postalCode=263001,
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=75BD9D0FB7F4A80990FC
51A722A6BC552D470EB4FD2F88DDF7C1
8DB2A1524A4D, cn=HIMANSHU NEGI
Date: 2026.10.28 10:56:04 +05'30'
HIMANS
HU NEGI
5