RSA No.3156 of 2008 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3156 of 2008 Date of Decision: 16.7.2009 Union of India and others ......Appellants Versus Parbhati Ram .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Gurpeet Singh, Advocate, for the appellants. Shri Sanjay Mittal, Advocate, for the respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The defendants are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court, whereby the suit for declaration challenging the order of stoppage of disability pension, was decreed. As per the facts on record, the plaintiff was enrolled in the Army on 30.4.1963 and was invalidated out of service on 13.3.1964 on health grounds at the time of discharge. The disability of the plaintiff was found to be 100%. The disability pension was released in his favour. During the periodical review, the plaintiff was found entitled to disability pension only upto 11.12.1974. The plaintiff continued to get disability pension upto 30.4.2001. It is the case of the defendants that since the disability was RSA No.3156 of 2008 (2) reduced to less than 20% on 11.12.1974, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to disability pension from 12.12.1974 to 30.4.2001, which was paid to the plaintiff inadvertently. A Division Bench of this Court in Chandgi Ram v. Union of India and others (Civil Writ Petition No.8768 of 2007 decided on 28.8.2008) has examined the question whether a discharged soldier is entitled to service element of disability pension where the disability stands reduced to less than 20%. It has been held that even if the disability is reduced to less than 20%, still service element is payable to the discharge of army personnel. In view thereof, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 16.7.2009 ds