Union of India Th Secretary to Goi Ministry of Defence New Delhi and Others v. Swarn Singh

ORDER

11.05.2026

¶1The present petition has been filed by the Union of India for setting aside the order dated 04.09.2023 passed by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal, Srinagar Bench at Jammu in O.A. No. 181/2022 titled "Ex Nk Swarn Singh vs. Union of India and others", by virtue of which the respondent herein has been held entitled to the benefit of second service pension after condoning the shortfall in qualifying service.

¶2The respondent was initially enrolled in the Indian Army on

13.02.1974 and was discharged in the year 1992 on completion of terms of engagement. For the said service, the respondent was granted regular service pension vide PPO No. S/035576/2006 (Army).

¶3The respondent was subsequently re-enrolled in the Defence Security Corps (DSC) on 11.08.1994 and was discharged on 31.01.2009 after rendering 14 years, 05 months and 21 days of qualifying service.

¶4The respondent, before attaining the age of superannuation of 57 years, was placed in "Low Medical Category P2(P) with 70% disablement for life", for which disability element was granted vide PPO No. DE/0164/2010. However, since the respondent had not completed the minimum qualifying service of 15 years, he was denied second service pension on account of shortfall of 191 days in qualifying service.

¶5Aggrieved of denial of service pension for the service rendered in DSC, the respondent approached the learned Armed Forces Tribunal, Srinagar Bench at Jammu by filing O.A. No. 181/2022 seeking grant of service pension after condoning the deficiency of 191 days in qualifying service. The learned Tribunal, vide order dated 04.09.2023, allowed the Original Application and directed the petitioners to condone the shortfall in qualifying service and grant second service pension to the respondent. The operative portion of the order reads as under: "8. The OA"s are accordingly allowed. The respondents are directed to condone the shortfall in qualifying service in accordance with the ratio of Shama Kaur (Supra). The same be done within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order by the learned counsel for the respondents/OIC Legal Cell and pension be disbursed to the applicants within one month thereafter."

¶6Feeling aggrieved of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the petitioners have filed the present petition primarily on the ground that the respondent had admittedly rendered only 14 years, 05 months and 21 days of qualifying service in DSC and was deficient by 191 days from the mandatory minimum qualifying service of 15 years prescribed under Rule

47 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008 (Part-I). It is contended that there exists no provision under the Pension Regulations or Government policy permitting condonation of deficiency in qualifying service for grant of second service pension.

¶7Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶8The controversy involved in the present petition no longer survives for consideration in view of the authoritative pronouncement rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Union of India and others Vs. Balakrishnan Mullikote", reported as 2026 SC INSC 286.

¶9The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while examining an identical issue, has held in paragraphs 47 and 48 of the aforesaid judgment as under: "47. This Court is of the view that Union of India through the Ministry of Defence shall determine the length of qualifying services in accordance with Paragraphs 9 and 18 of the Pension Regulations, of 1961 and 2008 respectively, as well as Note 5 appended to the letter dated 30th October 1987.

¶48If, upon determination of the length of qualifying service, there remains a shortfall of one year or less, the Respondents shall be entitled to seek condonation of such deficiency for the purpose of pension eligibility, in accordance with Paragraph 125 of the Pension Regulations, 1961 or Paragraph 44 of the Pension Regulations, 2008. This position has already been affirmed by this Court in Surender Singh Parmar (supra)…."

¶10Thus, the Union of India is required to determine the qualifying service in terms of Paragraphs 9 and 18 of the Pension Regulations of 1961 and 2008 respectively read with Note 5 appended to communication dated 30.10.1987 and, in the event the deficiency in qualifying service is found to be one year or less, the concerned personnel would be entitled to

consideration for condonation of such deficiency under Paragraph 125 of the Pension Regulations, 1961 or Paragraph 44 of the Pension Regulations, 2008.

¶11In the present case, admittedly, the respondent falls short of the prescribed qualifying service by 191 days only. The controversy raised in the instant petition, therefore, stands squarely covered by the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court and does not require any further adjudication on merits by this Court.

¶12In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we find no ground for interference in the order passed by the learned Tribunal. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed along with connected application(s).

(Shahzad Azeem) (Sindhu Sharma) Judge

Judge

Jammu:

11.05.2026 Michal Sharma/PS

Whether the order is speaking : Whether the order is reportable :

Jammu

Sr. No. 20 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Union of India and others …. Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through:- Mr. Vikas Sharma, Sr. Panel Counsel. V/s Swarn Singh …..Respondent(s) Through:- Mr. Prabhat Sangotra, Advocate vice Mr. Rajnish Raina, Sr. Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE