Smt Danni Devi wdo Late Sep (Reservist) Tara Chand vs UOI & Others on 26 March 2026

O R D E R

26.03.2026

1. The above Original Application has been filed by the Applicant under the provisions of Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, praying that exclusion of reservist pensioners from revision of reservist pension vide letter dt 08.03.2010 be declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India be quashed and set aside and to direct the Respondents to revise Reservist Pension of the Applicant wef 01.01.2006 at par with other pensioners in terms of Govt of India, Ministry of Defence letter dt 08.03.2010.

2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the applicant are that the Applicant’s husband was enrolled in the Army on 23.01.1963 and after completion of combined colour and reserve qualifying service of 15 years, he was discharged from Service on 31.01.1978 and was granted Reservist Pension for life which has been revised from time to time to 2/3rd of a Sepoy with 15 years of qualifying service. After death of her husband on 14.09.2012, the Applicant has been granted Ordinary Family Pension. The Govt of India, Ministry of Defence vide their letter No PC 10(1)/2009-D(Pen/Pol) dt

08.03.2010 revised pension of all pre-01.01.2006 retiree pensioners wef 01.07.2009 and in compliance of aforesaid letter, PCDA (P) Allahabad issued Circular No 430 dt 10.03.2010. The Applicant submits that the Govt of India arbitrarily excluded the Reservist Pensioners from the revision of Reservist Pension. The Applicant issued Legal Notice dt 05.09.2024 to the Respondents for revision of Reservist Pension in terms of Govt of India letter dt 08.03.2010 and Regulation 155 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part-1), but to no avail. The Applicant submits that her husband was entitled for minimum guaranteed pension for the rank of Sepoy Group ‘Y’ wef 01.01.2006 and the Respondents are bound to grant 2/3rd of minimum pension of a Sepoy in terms of the Regulation 155 of the aforesaid Pension Regulations and the Respondents cannot exclude the Reservist Pensioners for revision of pension in terms of Govt of India letter dt 08.03.2010 and further revision as per the provisions of OROP.

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’s husband was revised to Rs 3500/- wef 01.01.2006, which was further revised to Rs. 9000/- pm wef 01.01.2016 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 Circular Nos 501 dated 17.01.2013 and 555 (OROP) dated 04.02.2016 and 666 dt 20.01.2023 of the PCDA (P) are not applicable to Reservist Pensioners. Therefore, the Applicant is not eligible for revision of Reservist Pension as prayed for. The OA is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

4. During the course of hearing, the Counsel for the Applicant has placed on record an Order dt 27.10.2025 passed by High Court of judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur which has upheld various orders of this Armed Forces Tribunal wherein the pension of the Reservists was ordered to be revised to 2/3rd of the pension of a regular Sepoy wef 01.01.2016. On the other hand, the Counsel for the Respondents have placed on record the Hon’ble Supreme Court Interim Order dt 07.03.2025 ordering stay on the implementation of the orders of AFT (RB), Chandigarh relating to revision of Reservist Pension.

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

6. In this regard, Interim Order dated 07.03.2025 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 Swr (Reservist) Chiranji Lal, S/o Shri Raju Ram are relevant, which are reproduced below:-

Extract from the Order of the Hon’ble Apex Court:- “2. Let the notice be issued to the respondents, returnable within four weeks.

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

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”.

7. Thus, it is clear that revision of their Reservist Pension is pending 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.

8. 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.

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

10. No order on costs.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

Ssy/-