Union of India and Others Vs Lekh Ram… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Union of India and Others Vs Lekh Ram… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioners; the writ petition was dismissed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition of the Union of India under Articles 226/227 should be entertained against the Armed Forces Tribunal's order dated 14.08.2024, alleged to have wrongly allowed O.A. No.1505 of 2021 granting disability pension @ 50% as against 20% for life in violation of the provisions of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. +1 more

Court's answer

No ground was made out at the time of hearing to persuade the Court to interfere in the matter; consequently, the writ petition challenging the Tribunal's order granting rounded-off disability pension @ 50% was dismissed.

Ratio / Principle

The Court found the case of respondent No.1 squarely covered by the cited Supreme Court judgments on rounding off of disability pension (led by Union of India vs. Ram Avtar, Civil Appeal No.418 of 2012), whose applicability the Union's Senior Panel Counsel did not dispute; on that footing interference was unwarranted.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Kuldeep Tiwari, JJ.), oral judgment dated 28.07.2025, dismissed CWP-20366-2025 filed by the Union of India against the order dated 14.08.2024 (Annexure P-1) of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (respondent No.2), whereby Original Application No.1505 of 2021 of Lekh Ram (Retd.) Hony. Lt. — discharged on 01.05.2009 with disability assessed at 20% for life for 'Lumbar Canal Stenosis' — was allowed, granting rounding off of disability pension @ 50% for life from 01.05.2009 in terms of Union of India vs. Ram Avtar (Civil Appeal No.418 of 2012, decided 10.12.2014) and allied Supreme Court rulings (Dharamvir Singh; Chander Pal; Rajbir Singh; Angad Singh Titaria; Manjeet Singh; Mani Ram Bhaira; Satwinder Singh; Laxmanram Poonia). The Union's Senior Panel Counsel did not dispute the applicability of these judgments; no ground for interference was made out and the petition was dismissed.

CWP-20366-2025 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

(156) CWP-20366-2025 Date of Decision : 28.07.2025

Union of In d ia and others …Petitioners

Vers u s

Lekh Ram ( Retd.) Hony. Lt. and another ...Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

Present: Mr. Ramesh Chand Sharma, S r . Panel Counsel for the petitioners-Union of In d ia.

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. (ORAL)

The instant writ petition, ca s t under Articles 226/227 of t he Constitutio n of India, is directed agai n st the order dated 14.08.2 0 24 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Armed F orces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (respondent No.2), wherein, Original Application No.1505 of 2021, as pr e ferred by the respondent No.1 , for grant of element of disabi l ity pension @ 50% as against 20% for life, fr om the day next to his discha r ge from servi c e i.e. 01.05.2009, has been wr o ngly allowed, in violation of t he provisions o f the Arms Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. 2. The learned Tribunal has gra n ted the benefit of rounding of f of disability p e nsion @ 50% as against 20% f o r life, from the day next to dat e of his dischar g e from service i.e. 01.05.20 0 9, in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Su p reme Court, passed in Civil Appeal No.418 of 2012 , titled ‘Union of India vs. Ram Avtar’ decided on 10.12.2014 .

Though various submissions have been made by the lear n ed MANPREET SINGH 2025.07.31 18:18I attest to the accuracy andsenior pan e l counsel for Union of India, h owever, he does not dispute t he authenticity of this order/judgment

CWP-20366-2025 2

applicabilit y of the judgment (supra), in t h e facts of the of the present c a se. The disabil i ty of respondent No.1, was ass e ssed at 20% for life, on accoun t of suffering fr o m the disease ‘LUMBAR CAN A L STENOSIS’. 4. The case of respondent No.1, is squarely covered by vari o us judgments o f Hon’ble Supreme Court, ‘Dharamvir Singh Vs Union of India’ (2013) 7 S C C 316, Three Judge Bench d e cision in Civil Appeal 2337/2 0 09 ‘Union of India Vs Chander Pal’ decided o n 18.09.2013, ‘Union of India Vs Rajbir Singh’ (2015) 12 SCC 264, ‘Union of India Vs Angad Singh Titaria’ (2015) 12 S CC 257, ‘Union of India Vs Manjeet Singh’ (2015) 12 SCC 2 7 5, Civil Appe a l 4409/2011 ‘Ex Hav Mani Ram Bhaira Vs Union of India’ decided on 11.02.2016, Civil Appeal 1695 / 2016 ‘Satwinder Singh Vs Union of India’ d e cided on 11.02.2016 and ‘Ex Gnr Laxmanram Poonia Vs Union of India’ (2017) 4 SCC 697.

No ground has been made t o show this Court, at the time of hearing, to persuade us to interfere in the instant matter. Consequently, t he instant writ petition is dismissed .

(ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA) JUDGE

(KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE

July 28, 20 2 5 Manpreet

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

MANPREET SINGH 2025.07.31 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment