SANDEEP SINGH vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — CWP/636/2025

Case under Constitution of India Section 13. Disposed: --ALLOWED on 12th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 14-Jan-2025

CNR: PHHC010035982025

e-Filing Number

08-01-2025

Filing Number

CWP/1373/2025

Filing Date

09-Jan-2025

Registration No

CWP/636/2025

Registration Date

10-Jan-2025

Judge

Mr. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi , Mr. Justice Deepak Manchanda

Coram

Mr. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi , Mr. Justice Deepak Manchanda

Bench Type

Double

Category

4.11 - ORDERS AGAINST ARMED FORCE TRIBUNAL(CIVIL) ( 328 )

Sub-Category

( 944 )

Judicial Branch

WRITS -I BRANCH

Decision Date

12-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 13

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SANDEEP SINGH

    Adv. ASHOK BHARDWAJ

  2. 2.Union of India and others

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

  2. 2.Union of India and others

  3. 3.The PCDA

  4. 4.The Record Officer

  5. 5.Armed Forces Tribunal

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi,mr. Justice Deepak ManchandaView PDF

    The High Court of Punjab and Haryana modified the Armed Forces Tribunal's order denying disability/invalid pension to recruit Sandeep Singh, directing reconsideration of his claim within 8 weeks. The court held that invalid pension is admissible to recruits even before completing 10 years of service and applies retrospectively to cases prior to 2019, citing Supreme Court precedent in P.A. Thomas's case and the amended Pension Rules. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Jan-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/636/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana modified the Armed Forces Tribunal's order denying disability/invalid pension to recruit Sandeep Singh, directing reconsideration of his claim within 8 weeks. The court held that invalid pension is admissible to recruits even before completing 10 years of service and applies retrospectively to cases prior to 2019, citing Supreme Court precedent in P.A. Thomas's case and the amended Pension Rules. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case