UNION OF INDIA vs NO KULWANT SINGH — CWP/14485/2026

Case under Armed Forces Tribunal Act Section 22. Disposed: --DISMISSED on 11th May 2026.

CNR: PHHC010537952026

CASE DISPOSED

Next Hearing

11th May 2026

e-Filing Number

29-03-2026

Filing Number

CWP/18870/2026

Filing Date

30-03-2026

Registration No

CWP/14485/2026

Registration Date

07-05-2026

Judge

MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA

Coram

MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA

Category

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

Judicial Branch

WRITS -I BRANCH

Decision Date

11th May 2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Acts & Sections

Armed Forces Tribunal Act Section 22

Petitioner(s)

UNION OF INDIA

Adv. KRISHNA DAYAMA

No Kulwant Singh

Armed Forces Tribunal

PCDA

Office in charge

Respondent(s)

NO KULWANT SINGH

No Kulwant Singh

Armed Forces Tribunal

Orders

11-05-2026
MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA

Case Summary: CWP/14485/2026 The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the Union of India's petition challenging the Armed Forces Tribunal's grant of invalid pension to Ex. Sapr Kulwant Singh. The court held that under settled Supreme Court precedent (P.A. Thomas case, 2019), invalid pension is admissible even before completing the mandatory 10-year qualifying service period if the employee is found permanently incapacitated. The court rejected both contentions: (1) that the 10-year service requirement was mandatory, and (2) that the disability must be attributable/aggravated by military service, finding no applicable rule prohibiting such grants. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CWP/14485/2026 The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the Union of India's petition challenging the Armed Forces Tribunal's grant of invalid pension to Ex. Sapr Kulwant Singh. The court held that under settled Supreme Court precedent (P.A. Thomas case, 2019), invalid pension is admissible even before completing the mandatory 10-year qualifying service period if the employee is found permanently incapacitated. The court rejected both contentions: (1) that the 10-year service requirement was mandatory, and (2) that the disability must be attributable/aggravated by military service, finding no applicable rule prohibiting such grants. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Explore other courts

Search Another Case