15 years in Army not must for service element of disability pension: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Justices Harsimran Singh Sethi and Deepak Manchanda stated that the said question of law was already decided in a matter by the Supreme Court.

“Counsel for the petitioners has not been able to rebut the said settled principles of law according to which, even if an officer has less than 15 years of service in credit but has been discharged from service on the ground of disability suffered by the officer concerned during the service, the service element has to be taken into account as per Regulation 183 of the 1961 regulations,” the Punjab and Haryana High Court said on its May 8 order.

Case of disability pension

The Centre challenged a March 2022 order of the AFT, which had directed the government to grant the service element of disability pension to a respondent who had served in the armed forces for approximately nine years.

Representing the government, advocate Ramesh Chand Sharma argued that the respondent only served in the armed forces for a period of approximately nine years and hence, he was not entitled to the grant of service element of disability pension as the minimum service required for the grant of service element is 15 years.

He submitted that even otherwise, when the respondent was relieved from service, the medical board had assessed that the disease suffered by respondent was aggravated by military service and his disability was assessed at 30 per cent for life, and keeping this in mind, the benefit of disability pension devoid of service element was already given to him. Hence, revising it by adding the service element was incorrect.

Court’s findings

• It may be noticed that the Union of India has raised the claim that the officer concerned did not have 15 years of service to get the benefit of service element while fixing the disability pension, but the said question of law is no longer res integra (an untouched matter) as the same has already been decided by the Supreme Court.
• In Union of India and others v V R Nanukuttan Nair, the Supreme Court was dealing with a similar issue, though the provisions for considering the issue were those of the Navy.
• Regulation 107 of the Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964, which was discussed in the said judgment, is pari materia (on the same matter as) to the service regulations No. 183 (disability pension amount) of the Pension Regulation for the Army Act, 1961, which is applicable in the present case.
• A similar issue was raised by the Centre in Union of India and others v Ex Cpl Kishor Chandra Mohanty and another, imposing the cost of Rs 25,000, the co-ordinate bench of this court dismissed the petition by recording the findings that, despite the settled principle of law on the said aspect, the writ petitions are being filed by the Union of India by ignoring the provisions of law.

Other rulings

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a plea by the Union of India and upheld the AFT order granting disability pension to Army personnel even if the medical assessment places the disability at less than the standard 20 per cent threshold.

A bench of Justices Harsimran Singh Sethi and Deepak Manchanda was acting on a plea of the Union of India seeking to deny disability pension to a member of the armed forces discharged from duty due to medical reasons and challenging the AFT’s 2019 order.

“Since the reason for being relieved from service is the disability aggravated during the service period, the contention of the petitioner that the benefit of disability pension could not be granted to the respondent cannot be accepted,” the Punjab and Haryana High Court observed on May 1.