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
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
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
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.
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