ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL)
The petitioner (Annexure P-1) whereby the respondent off, of the disability
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are not challenging the judgment with regard to the finding about the entitlement of the respondent No.1
element as respondent
discharged whereas
personnel) for pension
referred to Regulation 132 of the Pension Regulations for Army, 1961 wherein minimum qualifying period for earning pension has been set out to be 15 years. He has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Singh Vs. Union of India and others,
Heard. The respondent Sepoy. He was discharged from service as he had suffered disability. The Medical Board had assessed disability of the respondent at 20% for life which was deemed to have been
Tribunal-respondent No.2
in the case of
4
CWP-35304-202
DATE OF DECISION: 14.01.2025
Versus Advocate for the petitioner(s). ****
s have challenged the order dated 27. No.1 has been held eligible element of disability pension to disability pension but they are disputing the service No.1 had put in only 5 years of service when he had been the requisite service, which entitles Sepoy (an army , is 15 years. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also
(2010) 15 SCC 126
No.1 is stated to have served the Indian Army as a aggravated by military service. The had relied upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court
Mahavir Singh Narwal Vs. Union of India,
1
4
… Petitioner (s) ... Respondent(s)
07.2017
for rounding to 50% as against 20%. the case of 'Bhola
.
Armed Forces
2004, SCC
1 of 3
OnlineDel 348 wherein the Delhi High Court had held that disability pension cannot be denied on the ground that the petitioner therein was discharged from service on the compassionate grounds. This judgment had been affirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.24171 of 2004, Union of India Vs. Mahavir Singh Narwal, decided on 04.01.2008.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to Regulation 132 of the Pension Regulations for Army, 1961 wherein minimum qualifying period for earning pension has been set out to be 15 years. However, these Regulations would not be applicable in the case of respondent No.1 for the reason that he had been discharged from service on account of his disability. Learned counsel has not been able to point out any pension regulation which stipulates a minimum number of years of service for an employee, who has been discharged on account of disability, to be eligible for disability pension. There is no dispute that the respondent No.1 had suffered disability while in service, which was aggravated due to his military service. The respondent No.1 had served Indian Army for over 5 years and was entitled to the benefits including disability pension in that regard. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. V.R. Nanakuttan Nair, (2019) 19 SCC 690, wherein it has been held that plain reading of Regulations does not infer that service element should be limited to individual who has completed minimum 15 years of engagement. The relevant pargraphs of the judgment are reproduced hereunder:
"xxxx
20. In view of the principles of interpretation relating to casus omissus, we find that a reading of the Regulations does not lead to an inference that the service element should be limited to an individual who has completed minimum 15 years of engagement. Regulation 78 cannot be read into Regulation 105-B when no such qualification is provided in Regulation 105-B.
21. Still further, Regulation 107 providing service element in the event of an individual who has not completed the qualifying service will become otiose. A reading of all the regulations harmoniously and keeping in view the object of grant of disability
2 of 3
The judgment of Bhola Singh Vs. Union of India and others
(supra) referred by learned counsel for the petitioners has been distinguished by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. V.R. Nanakuttan Nair (supra) wherein the Supreme Court, while dismissing the appeal preferred by the Union of India, had observed that since the Supreme Court had earlier not referred to the Regulations 105-B and 107, therefore, the reliance placed on the judgment without referring the statutory regulations would not be of any help to appellants therein. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:
"xxxxx
23. The learned counsel for the appellants refers to an order passed by this Court in Bhola Singh v. Union of India15. We find that this Court has not referred to Regulation 105-B as well as Regulation 107 of the Regulations to maintain an order of the High Court to deny service element of pension to an individual who has completed the initial fixed period of 10 years. Since the appeal has been decided without any reference to statutory regulations, we find that the reliance of the appellants on the said order is not helpful to the arguments advanced.
xxxx"
Consequently, the petition stands dismissed.
(ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL)
JUDGE
(DEEPAK MANCHANDA)
JUDGE
14.01.2025
SwarnjitS Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No
3 of 3