EX SEP SRI CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ISSUE show cause notice to the respondents as to why rule nisi be not issued.

(2.) MR. Himanshu Bajaj, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and states that no reply to the writ petition is to be filed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondents regarding merit of the case. However, the respondents do not dispute the law laid down by the Supreme Court and the High Court in the various cases holding that regarding the claim of pension/disability pension, bar of limitation would not apply and if there is a delay in preferring the claim, relief can be molded by denying the pension from the date it is due and payable and restrict the benefits for a period of three years preceding the date when the applicant approaches the Court.

(3.) THE petitioner has contended that he was enrolled in the regular Army as a Combatant Soldier on 16th October, 1961 and was discharged from the Army service on 1st November, 1976 after completing 15 years and 16 days in the Army service.