Ex Rect Harbans Lal vs Union Of India And Others

CWP-8512-2025
(O & M) 1 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-8512-2025
107+231 (O & M)
Date of Decision 05.11.2026
EX RECT HARBANS LAL
..Petitioner
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MINDERJEET YADAV
Present Mr. K.K. Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Neha Jain, Senior Panel Counsel
for the respondents-UOI.
*
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)
1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order
dated 31.07.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.4-Armed Forces
Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh, ( for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A.
NO. 258 of 2024 by which, the claim of the applicant (petitioner herein) with
respect of disability pension has been dismissed.
2. Certain facts for the correct appreciation of the issue in hand are
as herein as the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 20.11.1983 and was
invalidated out from service on 26.04.1984. Before release from service, the
applicant was brought before the Release Medical Board and his disability of
“Poly Arthritis-714 (B)” was assessed as 20% for two years and was held as
attributable to military service. Therefore, the disability pension was initially
granted to the applicant for two years by the Pension Sanctioning Authority,
PCDA(Pensions) Allahabad. Later Re-survey medical board of the applicant
was held and his disability was assessed as less than 20% (6%-10%)
RIYA
2026.11.12 10:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-8512-2025
(O & M) 2 2
permanent. But the PCDA(Pension) rejected the claim of the applicant as the
disability of the applicant is less than 20%(permanent).
4. Aggrieved by the rejection of his claim, the petitioner filed
application before the learned Armed Forces Tribunal concerned, for grant of
disability pension. The said O.A. was dismissed vide impugned order dated
31.07.2024 (Annexure P-1) on the ground of delay in filing the said OA.
Hence, the present petition is filed by the petitioner seeking disability
pension.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that qua the grant of
pensionary benefits including the benefit of disability pension as per the
settled principle of law, the delay cannot be brought into operation and only
relief can be modified keeping in view the delay raised in seeking the claim
of pensionary benefits. In the present case, the application filed by the
petitioner was solely dismissed by the Tribunal only on the ground of delay
by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India while passing order in Civil Appeal Nos. 6536 of 2021, titled as Union
of India and others versus Ex. Sep. R. Munusamy, decided on 19.07.2022 .
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner further
submits that the disability of “Poly Arthritis-714 (B)”, which was suffered by
the petitioner while being in service and the same has already been assessed
to be aggravated by the military service. Learned counsel for petitioner
further submits that as per the settled principle of law settled in Civil Appeal
No.5605 of 2010 decided on 25.06.2014 titled Sukhvinder Singh vs. Union
of India and others , the disability, even if, assessed at less than 20%, leads to
the circumstances where personnel concerned cannot discharge the duties
RIYA
2026.11.12 10:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-8512-2025
(O & M) 3 3
assigned to him/her and has to be relieved from duty, such a disability is to
be treated at a minimum of 20% so as to grant the benefit of disability
pension to the personnel concerned.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone
through the record with his able assistance.
8. Qua the arguments of the petitioner with respect of delay in
filing the original application, it may be noticed that as per the settled
principle of law settled 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, the claim for the
pension/family pension cannot be denied on the ground of delay as the same
is a recurring 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
RIYA
2026.11.12 10:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-8512-2025
(O & M) 4 4
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 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 ”
9. As per the judgment in Sukhvinder Singh’s case (supra) , the
injury/disability, which led to being invaliding out of an army personnel
RIYA
2026.11.12 10:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-8512-2025
(O & M) 5 5
from service is assessed at less than 20%, for the purpose of the grant of
disability pension to such army personnel, the same has to be treated at a
minimum of 20%. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is as under:
“11. We are of the persuasion, therefore, that
firstly, any disability not recorded at the time of
recruitment must be presumed to have been caused
subsequently and unless proved to the contrary to be a
consequence of military service. The benefit of doubt is
rightly extended in favour of the member of the Armed
Forces; any other conclusion would be tantamount to
granting a premium to the Recruitment Medical Board
for their own negligence.
Secondly, the morale of the Armed Forces requires
absolute and undiluted protection and if an injury leads to loss of
service without any recompense, this morale would be severely
undermined.
Thirdly, there appear to be no provisions
authorizing the discharge of invaliding out of service where the
disability is below 20 percent and seems to us to be logically so.
Fourthly, whenever a member of the Armed Forces is
invalided out of service, it perforce has to be assumed that his
disability was found to be above 20%.
Fifthly, as per the extant Rules/Regulations, a
disability leading to invaliding out of service would
attract the grant of fifty percent disability pension.”
11. Even otherwise, on being asked that whether, with the disability
from which petitioner suffered, the personnel concerned could have
continued in service and performed his duties without any hindrance,
learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to rebut the fact that
while suffering with the said disability, the officer could not have continued
in service. Once, it was an established fact that the officer concerned could
RIYA
2026.11.12 10:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-8512-2025
(O & M) 6 6
not have continued in service owing to the said disability, the only option
available was to invalidate him out of service and relieve him from service.
Since, the reason for being relieved from service is the disability aggravated
during the service period, the claim of the respondents that the benefit of
disability pension could not be granted to petitioner, cannot be accepted. The
injury which is aggravated by military service, forms the basis of him being
relieved from service.
12. When the aforesaid principle of law as being noticed herein
above, has been applied in the facts and circumstances of the present case,
the present matter is covered by the aforesaid settled principle of law. It may
be noticed that the claim of the petitioner was dismissed by the Tribunal only
on the ground of delay despite there being certain facts that the same could
have been decided on merit, which also find mention in the impugned order
dated dated 31.07.2024 (Annexure P-1) itself. Further, the delay has to be
taken into account while granting the ultimate relief but the relief of the
pensionary benefits including family pension as well as disability pension
cannot be dismissed on the ground of delay as the said claim is a recurring
cause of action.
13. Hence, keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of
the present case as well as settled principles of law as being noticed herein
before, the impugned order dated dated 31.07.2024 (Annexure P-1) is
hereby set aside
14. As enough time has been lapsed and the petitioner is of old age,
the Tribunal is requested to pass the fresh order within a period of 03 months
from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
RIYA
2026.11.12 10:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-8512-2025
(O & M) 7 7
15. Let both the parties appear before the Tribunal on 13.12.2026.
16. The present petition is allowed in above terms.
17. Pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, also stands
disposed of.
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
JUDGE

( MINDERJEET YADAV )
JUDGE
05.11.2026
Riya
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
RIYA
2026.11.12 10:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document