IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 657 of 2010 Date of Decision: July 2, 2010 Union of India and others …Appellants Versus Pritam Singh …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Ms. (Dr.) Amarpreet Sandhu, Advocate, Central Government Counsel, for the appellants. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The instant appeal by the Union of India filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 14.9.2009, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 9778 of 2008. The learned Single Judge has held the petitioner-respondent entitled to service element of pension with effect from 12.10.1968 to 16.10.2006 and the order rejecting the claim made by the petitioner- respondent has been quashed. LPA No. 657 of 2010 2. It has come on record that the petitioner-respondent was enrolled in Artillery as Gunner on 18.12.1963. He suffered disability during physical training by dislocation of right shoulder while doing horse jump. He was invalidated out of service by Release Medical Board on 6.6.1966 with 20% disability. He was granted disability pension vide PPO dated 18.11.1967. The disability pension was discontinued with effect from 12.10.1968 on the ground that disability was re-assessed, which comes to less than 20%, as is evident from order dated 31.5.2003 (P-4). In the Re-Survey Medical Board, he was assessed for 20% disability and was granted disability pension vide PPO dated 29.1.2007 9P-6). The petitioner-respondent complained that the disability element of pension was illegally discontinued w.e.f. 12.10.1968 to 16.10.2006 and that he was entitled to atleast service element of pension from the aforesaid period. 3. Before the learned Single Judge, the appellants agreed that the controversy was squarely covered by a Single Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Ex-Sepoy Nek Singh v. Union of India, 2003 (3) SCT 952 (P&H). The aforesaid judgment notices the distinction between service element and the disability element of pension. It also refers to Regulation 136(a) of the Army Pension Regulations, 1961, which prescribes that such army personnel would be equally entitled to the service pension which cannot be less than 2/3rd of the minimum service pension admissible to the rank/pay group. The judgment also placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment in the case of Amarjit Singh v. Union of 2 LPA No. 657 of 2010 India, (CWP No. 12311 of 1996, decided on 27.2.1997). 4. Once the appellants have agreed before the learned Single Judge that the matter was covered by the judgment rendered in Ex-Sepoy Nek Singh’s case (supra) then there is no scope left for interference in the Letters Patent appeal. The appeal is wholly without merit and does not warrant admission. Even otherwise on merit, the controversy is covered in favour of the petitioner- respondent and against the appellants by virtue of the judgment in Ex- Sepoy Nek Singh’s case (supra) and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Amarjit Singh’s case (supra). There is, thus, no merit in the instant appeal. Dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (A.N. JINDAL) July 2, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 3