LPA No. 609 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 609 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision 20.08.2010 Union of India and others -----Appellants Versus Surjit Chand & another ---Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mrs. Sangeeta Dhanda, Advocate 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 Union of India and its officers have filed the instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent challenging the judgment dated 19.08.2009 rendered by the learned Single Judge in C.W.P. No. 12583 of 2009 holding that merely because the petitioner-respondents were discharged from services on completion of terms of their engagement and were not invalidated out from service, would not dis-entitle them the benefits which flow to them from the letter dated 03.02.2000 (Annexure P-2). The learned Single Judge has placed reliance on Regulation 179 of the Army Pension Regulations, 1961 (for brevity 'the 1961 Regulation), which was also subject matter of consideration by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Paramjit Singh v. Union of India and others (C.W.P. No. 67 of 2007) decided on 12.02.2008. The Division Bench in Paramjit Singh's case (supra) has also taken into account the letter dated 03.02.2000, which provides that even though percentage of disability of the petitioner-respondents is 20% , yet he is entitled to be paid the disability pension at the rate of 50%. Accordingly, the LPA No. 609 of 2010 (O&M) -2- writ petition has been allowed and the directions have been issued restricting the payments of arrears to three years preceding the date of filing of the writ petition. The arrears are required to be paid within 4 months, failing which the payment is to attract the interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant at a considerable length, we find that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is unexceptionable and deserves to be upheld. The mere fact that the petitioner-respondents were discharged on completion of their terms would not deprive them the benefits of disability pension and on account of letter dated 03.02.2000, they would be entitled to 50% of the disability pension although their disability assessed is at 20%. The aforesaid view is covered by the Division Bench judgment in Paramjit Singh's case (supra). The learned counsel has not been able to distinguish the facts of the instant appeal from the facts of the judgment in Paramjit Singh's case (supra), warranting a different view by us. There is, thus, no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE August 20, 2010 Atul