Armed Forces Tribunal
Ex Gnr (Reservist) Mehar Chand vs UOI & Others on 13 November 2025
**ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, JAIPUR**
15.
**OA 355/2023 with MA 555/2023**
Army No 1164587W Ex Gnr (Reservist) Mehar Chand, S/o Late Shri Mansha Ram, Resident of Village and Post Jaswantpura, Tehsil Sadulpur, District Churu, Rajasthan
.... Applicant
Versus
1. 1. UOI, through the Secretary to the Govt of India, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi
2. 2. The PCDA (P), Prayagraj, UP
3. 3. The OIC Records, Nashik Road Camp, PIN 422 106
For Applicant
: Mr. Rajesh Gadwal, Advocate
For Respondents
: Mr. Pradeep Mathur, Advocate
**Alongwith**
17.
**OA 362/2023 with MA 568/2023**
Army No 3139433 Ex Sep (Reservist) Pokar Ram, S/o Late Shri Khewa Ram, Resident of Village and Post Kasil, Vila Dhod, Tehsil Sikar, District Sikar, Rajasthan – 332 002
.... Applicant
Versus
1. 1. UOI, through the Secretary to the Govt of India, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi
2. 2. The PCDA (P), Prayagraj, UP – 211 014
3. 3. The OIC Records, Records The JAT Regimental Centre, Civil Lines, Bareilly, UP – 243 001
For Applicant
: Mr. Rameshwar Lal, Advocate
For Respondents
: Mr. Pyare Lal, Advocate
Alongwith
18.
OA 364/2023 with MA 570/2023
Smt Shanti Devi, wd/o Army No 13834111 Late Sep Bhagwan Singh, Resident of Village & Post Gothra, Bhukran, Dhood, Tehsil Sikar, District Sikar, Rajasthan – 332 031
.... Applicant
Versus
1. 1. UOI, through the Secretary to the Govt of India, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi
2. 2. The PCDA (P), Prayagraj, UP – 211 014
3. 3. The OIC Records, Army Medical Corps Records, Lucknow – 226 002
For Applicant : Mr. Rameshwar Lal, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Brij Bihari Sharma, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. SANJIV MITTAL, MEMBER (A)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
**ORDER**
**13.11.2025**
1. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicants in these OAs have filed this OA praying for directing the Respondents to :- (a) OA 355/2023. Revise his Reservist Pension in terms of Govt of India, Ministry of Defence letter dated 08/3/2010 at par with other pensioners wef 01/1/2006.
(b) OA No 362/2023. Revise the Ordinary Family Pension (*sic*), (He is in receipt of Reservist Pension and Not Family Pension) @Rs 3500/- pm in accordance with PCDA (P) Circular No 430 with effect from 01/1/2006 till the same level is not achieved by revision and paid to the similarly placed cases and pay arrears. He has also prayed for revision of the Reservist Pension of the applicant from the date, the same has fallen below 2/3<sup>rd</sup> of a Sepoy with 15 years pension after 01/1/2006 and revise the same from Rs 9000/- to Rs 11,419/- wef 01/7/2014 and again from Rs 11,419/- to Rs 12,538/- wef 01/7/2019 as per the provisions laid down in Regulation 155 of the Pension Regulations for the Army 1961, Part I.
(c) **OA No 364/2023.** Revise the Reservist Pension of the husband of the applicant from the date the same has fallen below 2/3<sup>rd</sup> of a Sepoy with 15 years pension after 01/1/2006 and revise pension from Rs 9000/- to Rs 11,419/- wef 01/7/2014 to 31/1/2018 and pay LTA to the applicant. She has also prayed to direct the Respondents to revise pension to the applicant @Rs 11,419/- from 01/2/2018 to 30/6/2019 and @Rs 12,538/- wef 01/7/2019 for life as per the provisions laid down in Para 155 of the Pension Regulations for the Army 1961, Part I.
2. Since these applicants and husband of the applicant in the case of Serial No 18 above, were in receipt of Reservist Pension for the combined Colour and Reserve Service rendered by them and the issue involved is revision of their Reservist Pension, we deem it appropriate to club all these three OAs being similar in nature.
3. The Respondents have filed their Reply Statement in all these matters and conceded that the applicants and the husband of the applicant are/was in receipt of Reservist Pension. It has also been clarified by the Respondents that revision of pension as contained in Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence letter dated 08/3/2010 are not applicable in the case of the Reservist Pensioners. However, their pension has been reevised to Rs 3500/- pm wef 01/1/2006 and at Rs 9,000/- pm wef 01/1/2016 consequent to implementation of 6<sup>th</sup> and 7<sup>th</sup> CPC respectively. Moreover, it was brought out that the scheme of OROP was not made applicable to Reservist Pensioners and some other pensioners, viz, UK/HKSRA/KCIOs/Pakistan and Burma Army pensioners, etc.
A /
4. During the course of hearing, Counsel for the Applicants have placed on record a copy of the Order dated 27/10/2025 passed in DB Civil Writ Petition No 5865/2024 and connected matters by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur. The relevant extract of the Order reads as follows :- "1. The directions issued by the Armed Forces Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'AFT') challenged before us is no more res integra in several bunch of cases decided at Principal Seat of AFT as well as before AFT Regional Bench, Jaipur.
2. The provisions of Para 5.2 of letter dated 08/3/2010, issued by the Govt of India, was upheld and it was settled that benefit of revision of reservist pension is not applicable at par with pre retirees of 01/1/2006, but have been given benefit wef 01/7/2009, 24/9/2012 and 01/7/2014. It was, however, decided that 2/3<sup>rd</sup> of minimum pension of a regular Sepoy in terms of 7<sup>th</sup> CPC Pay Scale, which is applicable wef 01/1/2016, shall be payable to the reservist. The entitlement is of receiving 2/3<sup>rd</sup> minimum pension in light of Para 155 of Pension Regulations for the Army 1961. We, therefore, do not find any reason to take a different view."
5. The Counsel for the Respondents, on the other hand, placed on record a copy of the Interim Order dated 07/3/2025 of the Hon'ble Apex Court wherein a stay has been ordered on implementation of the Orders of Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh/Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana relating to revision of Reservist Pension from time to time, till the matter is finally disposed off by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
6. We have heard the counsels for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
7. 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 Swr (Reservist) Chiranjil Lal, S/o Shri Raju Ram, 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".
8. Thus, it is clear that the issue of revision of 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 similar cases vide Order dated 03/11/2025.
9. 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 these OAs 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 case of the Applicants herein as well.
1. 10. The OAs are disposed off accordingly. No order on costs.
2. 11. Pending Applications also stand disposed off.
(SANJIV MITTAL) MEMBER (A)
(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (J)
cda/-
The seal of the Supreme Court of India is a circular emblem. It features a central image of the scales of justice, which are supported by two lotus flowers. The emblem is encircled by the text "सर्वोच्च न्याय" (Supreme Court) in Devanagari script.