HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral)
1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 01.02.2023 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.5-Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') by which, only the disability element of disability pension has been granted to the husband of petitioner and service element of disability pension has not been granted to the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per rules governing the service, disability pension consists of two elements i.e. service and disability element; irrespective of the length of service rendered by a personnel; benefit of service element is to be granted to a personnel and also in case, such personnel is discharged from service due to disability suffered, which was the present case, hence said benefit is also to be granted to husband of the petitioner especially when there is no bar for grant of said benefit to him.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent-UOI submits that the Tribunal has rightly granted the disability element of disability pension to
1
2
husband of petitioner and no interference is called for as the prayer made therein was only to grant the benefit of disability element of disability pension. Learned counsel for the respondent-UOI further submits that even the required length of service i.e. 15 years for grant of service element has not been rendered by husband of petitioner, hence there arises no occasion so as to grant said benefit.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.
5. It is settled that disability pension consists of two elements i.e. service and disability element and once a personnel is found entitled for grant of disability pension, he is to be granted both the elements i.e. service and disability element. In the present case, the husband of petitioner has been granted only the benefit of disability element and not the service element, which cannot be sustained. Once, the husband of petitioner has been held entitled to disability element of disability pension by treating said disability as attributable to military service, he cannot be denied the benefit of service element of disability pension especially when there is no bar in the rules governing over the service that prohibit for grant of service element. What is required to be seen for grant of service element is whether there is any disability suffered by personnel, which is due to military service, and whether due to said disability, there has been a discharge from service. In the present case, both these conditions are fulfilled, which entitles the petitioner for grant of service element.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent-UOI is confusing between the terms service element and service pension. It is true that for grant of service pension, minimum qualifying service required is 15 years, but the terms service pension and service element are totally different. For grant of
3
service element, no minimum length of service is required, rather the only requirement is that a person should be discharged from service on the basis of a disability suffered, which is due to military service.
7. As far as contention raised by learned counsel for the respondents that no such prayer was raised, it should be noted that once husband of petitioner was held entitled for grant of disability element of disability pension by considering the disability suffered as attributed to military service, which disability was made the basis of discharge from service or rather for not letting husband of petitioner not to continue in service by not granting benefit of extension in service, because of him being placed in low medical category keeping in view the facts. Husband of petitioner is entitled for service element of disability pension as well especially when there is no such bar provided in rules for non-grant of same and rather it was the duty of Union of India to not let such personnel or his family run from post to pillar for grant of said benefit, especially when said benefit stands admissible.
8. Keeping in view the above, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is modified to said extent that along with benefit of disability element benefit of service element is also to be granted, keeping in view the length of service rendered by him.
9. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
10. Miscellaneous application pending, if any, is also disposed of.
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
JUDGE
(DEEPAK MANCHANDA)
13.05.2026 JUDGE
sandeep Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes Whether Reportable : No