Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds AFT Order Granting Service Pension; Says Shortfall of Two Months Can Be Condoned Under Binding Precedent

Case Name: Union of India & Others vs. Ex Nk Ramesh Chand & Another
Date of Judgment: 02 December 2025
Citation: CWP-35807-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikas Suri

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court refused to interfere with the Armed Forces Tribunal’s direction granting service pension to a former DSC personnel by condoning a shortfall of two months and ten days in qualifying service. The Court held that the issue stood conclusively settled by the Tribunal’s earlier decision in Shama Kaur, affirmed up to the Supreme Court, and that the pendency of a separate matter concerning condonation beyond one year could not justify withholding relief in a case covered by existing law.

Summary: The respondent had served fourteen years, nine months and twenty days in the Defence Security Corps, falling short by two months and ten days of the fifteen-year requirement for entitlement to second service pension. The Tribunal applied its earlier judgment in Shama Kaur, which permits condonation of shortfall up to twelve months for DSC personnel. The Union of India argued that implementation of Shama Kaur should be withheld because the Supreme Court had stayed a Delhi High Court judgment that relied on it in a different matter, and urged that this writ petition be kept pending until the Supreme Court decides the case arising out of Chinna Vediyappan.

The Court rejected the plea outright, relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu & Kashmir National Conference, which mandates that High Courts must apply the law as it stands and cannot defer adjudication merely because a related matter is pending before the Supreme Court unless a specific stay exists. The Court observed that the issue pending before the Supreme Court concerns condonation of more than one year, whereas the present case involves a shortfall well within the permissible twelve months recognised in Shama Kaur.

The Union of India conceded that the respondent’s case is identical to that of the claimants in Shama Kaur, and that the precedent has been implemented and attained finality. The Court also noted that a coordinate Bench had recently applied Shama Kaur in Ex Naik Kuldeep Singh, reinforcing consistency in pension entitlement jurisprudence for DSC personnel.

Decision: The writ petition was dismissed. The High Court affirmed the Tribunal’s order granting service pension to the respondent after condonation of the shortfall and declined to keep the matter pending in view of binding precedent.