IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No. 1646 of 2010 Date of Decision: December 3, 2010 Union of India and others …Appellants Versus Smt. Surender Pal Kaur …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Anil Rathee, Addl. C.G.S.C., 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. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 28.5.2009 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the writ petitioner-respondent is entitled to grant of disability pension and also to disability benefit covered under the Army Group Insurance Fund. The learned Single Judge has categorically held that the matter is covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Paramjit Singh v. Union of India and others (C.W.P. No. 67 of 2007, decided on 12.2.2008). 2. On facts it was not disputed that husband of the writ petitioner- respondent had retired from the Army as Subedar on 31.3.2004 and army authorities have sanctioned his disability pension at the rate of 20% only vide order dated 11.7.2006 (P-1). However, on the basis of para 7.2 of the Government of India, Ministry of Defence letter dated 31.1.2001 (R-1), the petitioner has L.P.A. No. 1646 of 2010 claimed that where an armed force personnel is invalidated out under circumstances mentioned in para 4.1 of the letter the extent of disability shall be determined by giving minimum 50%. The aforesaid view has been taken by the Division Bench in Paramjit Singh’s case (supra) and following the dictum laid down by the Division Bench, the learned Single Judge has allowed the disability pension to the extent of 50% and directed payment of arrears. 3. Having heard learned counsel we are of the view that the Division Bench judgment in Paramjit Singh’s case (supra) is fully applicable and the learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to point out any distinguishing feature warranting non-applicability of the aforementioned judgment to the present case. We have repeatedly asked Mr. Rathee that what is the object of filing the appeal once the matter was covered, there is no satisfactory explanation. Therefore, the appeal does not merit admission and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) December 3, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 2