Dismissed¶¶23

The Union of India v. No 13810040 Ex. Sep (Reservist) Om Prakash Son of Shri Bhola Ram

Rajasthan HC10 Sept 2025CW/8764/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Reservist pension; 2/3rd of minimum pension of regular Sepoy; 7th Central Pay Commission Pay Scale w.e.f. 01.01.2016; Para 155 Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961; Para 5.2 of Govt. of India letter dated 08.03.2010; benefits w.e.f. 01.07.2009, 24.09.2012 and 01.07.2014; not at par with pre-retirees of 01.01.2006; gross laches and delay; non-interference with belated petitions; AFT directions; interest @ 8% per annum; D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8764/2024; High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench; neutral citation [2025:RJ-JP:36460-DB]; Justices Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Sanjeet Purohit.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed, with direction to release the amount as directed by the AFT with interest @ 8% per annum expeditiously, not later than one month. ¶¶23

The Union of India Vs No 13810040 Ex. Sep (Reservist) Om Prakash Son of Shri Bhola Ram — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition dismissed, with direction to release the amount as directed by the AFT with interest @ 8% per annum expeditiously, not later than one month.

¶¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should interfere with the directions issued by the Armed Forces Tribunal regarding revision of reservist pension payable to the respondent, in view of the settled position in several bunches of cases. +1 more

¶¶15

Court's answer

Para 5.2 of the Govt. of India letter dated 08.03.2010 stands upheld: benefit of revision of reservist pension is not applicable at par with pre-retirees of 01.01.2006, reservists having been given benefits w.e.f. 01.07.2009, 24.09.2012 and 01.07.2014.

¶¶16

Ratio / Principle

2/3rd of the minimum pension of a regular Sepoy in terms of the 7th Central Pay Commission Pay Scale (applicable w.e.f. 01.01.2016) is payable to the reservist, per Para 155 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961; the Court found no reason to take a different view from the AFT's directions.

¶¶20

Key takeaways

The petition suffers from gross laches and delay which remains inadequately explained; consistently with the Court's earlier view in Union of India v. No 2849994 Rfn (Reservist) Man Singh (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7831/2025), the Court declines to interfere with such belated petitions.ratio¶¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rajasthan High Court (Division Bench, Jaipur) dismissed the Union of India's writ petition challenging Armed Forces Tribunal directions concerning reservist pension. Reaffirming the settled position in several bunches of cases decided at the Principal Seat of AFT and AFT Regional Bench, Jaipur, the Court held that Para 5.2 of the Govt. of India letter dated 08.03.2010 stands upheld; the benefit of revision of reservist pension is not applicable at par with pre-retirees of 01.01.2006, benefits having been given w.e.f. 01.07.2009, 24.09.2012 and 01.07.2014; and a reservist is entitled to receive 2/3rd of the minimum pension of a regular Sepoy in terms of the 7th Central Pay Commission Pay Scale applicable w.e.f. 01.01.2016, in light of Para 155 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961. Independently, the petition suffered from gross laches and delay inadequately explained, and the Court followed its earlier view in Union of India & Ors. v. No 2849994 Rfn (Reservist) Man Singh (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7831/2025) of non-interference with such belated petitions. The AFT-directed amount was to be released with interest @ 8% per annum expeditiously, not later than one month.

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:36460-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8764/2024

¶4

The Union of India, Through The Secretary To The Government of India, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi.

¶5

PCDA (Pension), Allahabad (U.P).

¶6

The OIC Records, ASC Records (South) PIN-900493 C/o 56 APO.

¶7

----Petitioners/Non-Applicants

¶8

Versus

¶9

No. 13810040 Ex. Sep (Reservist) Om Prakash Son of Shri Bhola Ram, Aged About 78 Years, Resident of Village & Post Makrana, Tehsil Mahendragarh, District Bhiwani (Haryana), At Present Resident of H. No. 162, Krishna Marg, Prem Nagar, Jhotwara, Jaipur-302012.

¶10

----Respondent/Applicant

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Manjeet Kaur

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

¶13

Order

¶14

10/09/2025

¶15

The directions issued by the Armed Forces Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘AFT’) challenged before us is no more res integra in several bunch of cases decided at Principal Seat of AFT as well as before AFT Regional Bench, Jaipur.

¶16

The provisions of Para 5.2 of letter dated 08.03.2010, issued by the Govt. of India, was upheld and it was settled that benefit of revision of reservist pension is not applicable at par with pre retirees of 01.01.2006, but have been given benefits w.e.f. 01.07.2009, 24.09.2012 and 01.07.2014. It was, however,

¶17

(2 of 2)

¶18

[2025:RJ-JP:36460-DB]

¶19

[CW-8764/2024]

¶20

decided that 2/3^rd of minimum pension of a regular Sepoy in terms of 7^th Central Pay Commission Pay Scale, which is applicable w.e.f. 01.01.2016, shall be payable to the reservist. The entitlement is of receiving 2/3^rd of minimum pension in light of Para 155 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961. We, therefore, do not find any reason to take a different view.

¶21

We also noticed that this petition suffers from gross latches and delay, which remains inadequately explained. In “ Union of

¶22

India & Ors. Vs. No 2849994 Rfn (Reservist) Man Singh” (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7831/2025), we have taken a similar view of non interfering with such belated petitions.

¶23

Accordingly, we dismiss this petition with direction to release the amount as directed by the AFT with interest @ 8% per annum expeditiously not later than one month.

¶24

(SANJEET PUROHIT),J

¶25

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶26

Amit/Ritu/44

The Union of India v. No 13810040 Ex. Sep (Reservist) Om Prakash Son of Shri Bhola Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Union of India v. No 13810040 Ex. Sep (Reservist) Om Prakash Son of Shri Bhola Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Rajasthan Vs Ajit Kumar Son of Shri Banshi Lal

Mithalal Bohra Son of Shri M.C. Bohra Vs Union of India

Dr. Ramprakash Sharma Son of Shri Girraj Sharan Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Vs Board of Secondary Education

State of Rajasthan Vs Board of Secondary Education

Shri Sadhu Ram Saini Son of Late Shri Bhanwara Ram Saini Vs Raj Rjya Sahakari Upbhokta Sangh Limited