Smt Sarwati Devi Wdo Late Ex Sep (Reservist) Bhara Ram (Army) vs UOI & Others on 3 September 2026

**ORDER**

**03.09.2026**

1. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, the Applicant has filed present OA praying therein that the exclusion of reservist pensioners from the revision of pension in terms of Ministry of Defence letter dated 08/3/2010 be declared being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and that the said letter be quashed and set aside. Further, the non-applicants be directed to revise the pension of husband of the applicant and family pension in terms of Ministry of Defence letter dated 08/3/2010 at par with other pensioners wef 01/1/2006 and the arrears paid to the applicant along with 12% interest till the death of her husband.

2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the applicant are that the applicant's husband was enrolled in the Army 12.05.1961 and after completion of combined colour and reserve service, he was transferred to pension establishment on 31.05.1976 and was granted Reservist Pension wef 01.06.1976 which was revised from time to time. However, further revision in terms of Para 5.2 of Ministry of Defence letter dated 08/3/2010, pre-2006 retiree Reservist Pensioners were excluded from the revision. The Applicant's husband made representation for revision of Reservist Pension during his lifetime but the Respondents paid no heed and thereafter he died on 17.12.2018. The Applicant submits that the pensioners form a class and no discrimination can be made amongst the pensioners. The Reservist Pensioners are not separate nor are separable from other pensioners. Therefore, the denial of revision of pension to Reservist Pensioners is arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory and as such violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Applicant made representation as also issued Legal Notice for removal/deletion of words "Reservist Pensioners" from Para 5.2 of Govt of India letter dt 08.03.2010 and revision of Service/Family Pension accordingly, but the Respondents paid no heed. Therefore, the aggrieved Applicant has filed present OA.

3. The Respondents have filed a detailed Reply Statement and while not disputing the basic facts presented by the Applicant, they have submitted that consequent to issue of Govt of India, Ministry of Defence letter dated 11/11/2008, pension of the applicant was revised to Rs 3500/- wef 01/1/2006, which was further revised to Rs 9000/- pm wef 01/1/2016 in accordance with Govt of India, Ministry of Defence letter dated 29/10/2016, for which no separate PPO is required to be issued. Further, instructions contained in Govt of India, Ministry of Defence letter dt 08.03.2010 [PCDA (P) Circular No 430 dt 10.03.2010], Govt of India, Ministry of Defence letter dt 17.01.2013 [PCDA (P) Circular Nos 501 dated 17.01.2013] and Govt of India, Ministry of Defence letter dt 03.02.2016 [PCDA (P) Circular No 555 dt 04.02.2016 (OROP) are not applicable to Reservist Pensioners. Therefore, the Applicant is not eligible for revision of Pension, as prayed for. The OA is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

4. We have heard the counsels for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

5. In this regard, Judgment dated 07/3/2025 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No 6367/2025 (arising out of the final judgment dated 27/9/2024 in CWP No 17046/2024 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh) in the case of UOI & Ors Vs Darshan Singh Bal & Anr, vide which the execution of impugned Order passed by the Hon'ble High Court has been stayed, as also the judgment dated 15/10/2025 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in the DB Civil Writ Petition No 12723/2024 in the case of UOI & Ors Vs No 1033471 Ex SW (Reservist) Chiranji Lal, S/o Shri Raju Ram, which are reproduced below:- 

**Extract from the Order of the Hon'ble Apex Court :-**

1. "2. Let the notice be issued to the respondents, returnable within four weeks.

2. 3. In the meantime, the operation of the impugned order is stayed".

**Extract from the Order of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan:-**

1. "1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners fairly submits that the controversy can be brought to an end at this juncture by observing that since the controversy is pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No 6367/2025 titled as 'Union of India & Ors Vs Darshan Singh Bal', and an interim order is also operating therein, therefore, outcome of the said SLP may govern the field in the present case.

2. 2. Learned Counsel for the Respondent does not oppose the aforesaid proposition.

3. 3. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed of with a direction that final outcome of the aforementioned SLP pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court shall govern the position of law in the present case. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of".

6. Thus, it is clear that the issue of revision of Reservist Pension is pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Apex Court and an interim order has since been passed staying the implementation of AFT Chandigarh Bench Order (supra) which has been appealed against in that Court. This Tribunal has also disposed off a bunch of cases vide Order dated 03.11.2025.

7. In view of the foregoing and since the matter is pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court for final adjudication, we deem it appropriate to dispose off this OA with the same direction as given at Para 3 of the ibid Hon'ble High Court Order that the final outcome of the aforementioned SLP pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court shall govern the position of law in the present case as well.

8. The OA is disposed off accordingly. Pending Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, also stand disposed off.

9. No order on costs.


Sd/- XXX

न

Sd/- XXX

(SANJIV MITTAL) MEMBER (A)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (J)

Ssy/-