Union Of India And ORS v. No 20003807 Ex Rect Vijay Singh And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CM-13900-CWP-2025 in/and Decided on : 22.09.2025 UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

...Petitioners

Versus

EX RECT VIJAY SINGH AND ANR . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI PRESENT: Ms. Neha Jain, Advocate Senior Panel Counsel, for the petitioners.

(appears through virtual mode).

**** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral) CM-13900-CWP-2025 The prayer in the present application filed is for placing on record the judgment dated 07.01.2025 passed in CWP No. 28442 of 2023 titled as 'Union of India versus Ex. AC UT Sandeep Kumar and Another'. Keeping in view the averments mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Copy of judgment dated 07.01.2025 passed in CWP No. 28442 of 2023 titled as 'Union of India versus Ex. AC UT Sandeep Kumar and Another' is taken on record subject to all just exceptions. CWP-26658-2025 1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the claim of

CM-13900-2025 in/and respondent No. 1 wherein he was held to be eligible for grant of invalid pension w.e.f. 04.01.2019, has been allowed by the Tribunal in terms of thejudgment dated 07.01.2025 passed in CWP No. 28442 of 2023 titled as 'Union of India versus Ex. AC UT Sandeep Kumar and Another', which is incorrect, hence, the same may kindly be set-aside. 2.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the case file with her able assistance. 3.

On being asked to point out any differentiating facts between the case of respondent No. 1 herein and the judgment dated 07.01.2025 passed in CWP No. 28442 of 2023 titled as 'Union of India versus Ex. AC UT Sandeep Kumar and Another', learned counsel for the petitioners concedes the fact that the claim in the both cases is identical and no differentiating facts between both the cases could be brought to the notice of this Court. 4.

Further, learned counsel for the petitioners was asked as to whether the judgment passed in Ex. AC UT Sandeep Kumar 's case (supra) has been challenged or not. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition was filed challenging the said judgment passed in Ex. AC UT Sandeep Kumar 's case (supra), but the same has already been dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 5.

Keeping in view the fact that the judgment passed in Ex. AC UT Sandeep Kumar 's case (supra) has already been upheld by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and the benefit has already been extended to Ex. AC UT Sandeep Kumar and no differentiating facts between the claim of the respondent No. 1 herein and the claim of the Ex. AC UT Sandeep Kumar is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, no


CM-13900-2025 in/and 

    

             

          6.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

7.

Pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, stands disposed of.

(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE ( VIKAS SURI ) JUDGE 22.09.2025 Riya Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No