Allowed¶8

Dharampal v. Union of India and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Aug 2025CWP/5261/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Search terms: arrears; three-year restriction; date of first approach to Court/Tribunal; OA No.1247 of 2015 filed 12.08.2015; OA No.2697 of 2019; second appeal pending decision; order dated 04.11.2015 set aside; Tribunal order dated 21.12.2020; Annexure P-4; modification of Tribunal order; ex-serviceman petitioner Dharampal RFN 13736752; Rajesh Sehgal advocate; Vibhor Bansal Senior Panel Counsel for UOI; CWP-5261-2025; High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh; decided 19.08.2025; oral judgment; not reportable.

What did the court decide?

Modification of the Tribunal's order dated 21.12.2020 (Annexure P-4) to the extent that the petitioner is entitled to arrears for the period of three years prior to 12.08.2015, when OA No.1247 of 2015 was filed. ¶8

Dharampal Vs Union of India and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the arrears payable to the petitioner should be reckoned for a period of three years prior to the filing of OA No.1247 of 2015 (the first OA raising the same claim) rather than three years prior to the filing of OA No.2697 of 2019, as fixed by the order dated 21.12.2020 (Annexure P-4).

¶1

Court's answer

The grant of arrears for a period of three years prior to approaching the Court means that the arrears are to be restricted from the date the applicant approaches the Court for redressal of his grievance; since the petitioner first approached the Tribunal through OA No.1247 of 2015 filed on 12.08.2015, the arrears should have been restricted to three years prior to 12.08.2015.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order dated 21.12.2020 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the petitioner is entitled to arrears for the period of three years prior to 12.08.2015, when OA No.1247 of 2015 was filed.

¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Dharampal (Ex. RFN. No.13736752) v. Union of India and others, CWP-5261-2025 (High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, decided 19.08.2025; Harsimran Singh Sethi, J., oral; co-signed Vikas Suri, J.; not reportable): Arrears of the benefit claimed are to be reckoned from the date the applicant first approaches the Court/Tribunal. The petitioner's identical claim was first raised in OA No.1247 of 2015, filed on 12.08.2015, which was disposed of with a direction to decide the appeal; the ensuing order dated 04.11.2015 was later set aside when the petitioner's subsequent OA No.2697 of 2019 was allowed. The Tribunal's order dated 21.12.2020 (Annexure P-4), which confined arrears to three years prior to the filing of OA No.2697 of 2019, was modified to confine arrears to three years prior to 12.08.2015. Petition stands disposed of accordingly; no monetary quantum is stated in the judgment.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

216

¶3

CWP-5261-2025 Date of Decision: 19.08.2025

¶4

Dharampal Ex. RFN. No.13736752

¶5

...Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Union of India and others

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI

¶10

Present:Mr. Rajesh Sehgal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Vibhor Bansal, Senior Panel Counsel, for respondent Nos.1 to 4-UOI.

¶12

¶13

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (ORAL)

¶14

In the present petition, the only grievance being raised by the petitioner is that vide order dated 21.12.2020, copy of which has been appended as Annexure P-4, the petitioner has been granted the benefit of arrears of preceding three years prior to filing of OA No.2697 of 2019, whereas the petitioner should have been granted the benefit for a period of three year prior to filing of OA No.1247 of 2015, in which OA, same claim as has been raised in OA No.2697 of 2019, was raised, but the same got disposed of on the ground that the second appeal was pending decision.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner had filed an OA No.1247 of 2015, which was disposed of by the Tribunal

¶16

HARISH KUMAR 2025.08.22 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶17

CWP-5261-2025 -2-

¶18

directing the respondents to decide the appeal, which order had ultimately gone against the petitioner and the petitioner again filed an OA No.2697 of 2019 challenging the said order, which has been allowed. Learned counsel submits that while granting the relief, the arrears have been restricted for a period of three years prior to the filing of OA No.2697 of 2019, whereas the same should have been allowed for a period of three years prior to the filing of OA No.1247 of 2015, which was initially filed asking the same relief as has been granted in OA No.2697 of 2019.

¶19

Learned counsel for the respondents does not deny the fact that the petitioner had initially filed an OA bearing No.1247 of 2015, which led to the passing of order dated 04.11.2015, which was ultimately set aside while deciding OA No.2697 of 2019, which was filed by the petitioner subsequently challenging the order rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

¶20

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case with their able assistance.

¶21

The grant of arrears for a period of three years prior to approaching the Court means that whenever the applicant approaches the Court for the redressal of his grievance, the arrears are to be restricted from the said date. The conceded position is that the petitioner had approached the

¶22

Tribunal initially by filing OA No.1247 of 2015, which was filed on 12.08.2015. That being so, the Tribunal should have restricted the arrears for a period of three years prior to 12.08.2015.

¶23

Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to dispute the said fact.

¶24

Hence, the impugned order dated 21.12.2020 (Annexure p-4)

¶25

HARISH KUMAR 2025.08.22 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶26

CWP-5261-2025 -3-

¶27

passed by the Tribunal is accordingly modified to the extent that the petitioner is entitled for the arrears for the period of three years prior to 12.08.2015, when OA No.1247 of 2015 was filed.

¶28

Petition stands disposed of.

¶29

( HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI ) JUDGE

¶30

( VIKAS SURI ) August 19, 2025 JUDGE harish Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No

¶31

HARISH KUMAR 2025.08.22 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

Dharampal v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharampal v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Simerjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Others

Telu Ram Bansal Vs State of Punjab and Others

Sudhir Pal Vs Union of India and Others

Ottimo Visuals Vs M/S Essel Housing and Another

Khurshid Ahmed Vs State of Haryana and Others

Kshitij Sharma Vs Union of India and Others