UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS vs SARTI DEVI AND ANOTHER — CWP/24623/2025
Case under Constitution of India Section 226/227. Disposed: --DISMISSED on 11th May 2026.
CNR: PHHC010972032025
Next Hearing
25th August 2025
e-Filing Number
23-06-2025
Filing Number
CWP/37639/2025
Filing Date
24-06-2025
Registration No
CWP/24623/2025
Registration Date
21-08-2025
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
11th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Adv. Rohit Verma
Smt Sarti Devi and Another
The Chief of the Army Staff
The Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension)
Officer In Charge Records, Signal Records
Respondent(s)
SARTI DEVI AND ANOTHER
Smt Sarti Devi and Another
The Chief of the Army Staff
Orders
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the Union of India's petition challenging the Armed Forces Tribunal's grant of invalid pension to Smt Sarti Devi (widow of Late Signalman Dharam Pal). The court held that invalid pension can be granted even when service is less than 10 years, relying on Supreme Court precedent (P.A. Thomas case, 2019), and that the disability need not be attributable to military service. Since the earlier litigation concerned disability pension (rejected) while the current claim concerned invalid pension (distinct relief with different criteria), no res judicata applied. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the Union of India's petition challenging the Armed Forces Tribunal's grant of invalid pension to Smt Sarti Devi (widow of Late Signalman Dharam Pal). The court held that invalid pension can be granted even when service is less than 10 years, relying on Supreme Court precedent (P.A. Thomas case, 2019), and that the disability need not be attributable to military service. Since the earlier litigation concerned disability pension (rejected) while the current claim concerned invalid pension (distinct relief with different criteria), no res judicata applied. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts