Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Pronounced On: 01.04.2026 vs Bansi Lal on 1 April, 2026
Author: Sanjeev Kumar
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar
2026:JKLHC-JMU:926-DB
Sr. No. 51
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
WP (C) No. 2422/2024
CAV No. 1869/2024 c/w
WP (C) No. 1277/2024
WP (C) No. 1710/2024
Pronounced on: 01.04.2026
Uploaded on:___________
Union of India .... Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Through:- Mr. Rohan Nanda, CGSC
V/s
Bansi Lal .....Respondent(s)
Through:-
Mr. B.S. Sarmal, Advocate
Mr. Amit Singh, Advocate
Mr. P.L. Sharma, Advocate
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
ORDER(ORAL)
CM No. 116/2025 in WP (C) No. 1710/2024
(Union of India and others Vs. Naik Sardari Lal).
1. This is an application for substitution of legal heir of the respondent-
Naik Sardari lal, who is stated to have died on 21.02.2024 i.e., during
the pendency of this petition, leaving behind his wife, Shankuntla Devi,
as the sole surviving legal heir entitled to the benefit of family pension.
2. The application for the reasons, stated therein, is allowed and,
Shankuntla Devi, wife of Late Naik Sardari Lal respondent (herein) is
taken on record as the legal representative.
3. Registry to update the cause title.
WP (C) No. 2422/2024
WP (C) No. 1277/2024 & WP (C) No. 1710/2024
1. The issue raised in all these petitions is squarely covered by and fully
answered by the Honb’le Supreme Court in case titled “Union of India
and others Vs. Balakrishnan Mullikote“, 2026 SC INSC 286 in
WP(C) No. _2422/2024_____ Page 2 of 2
2026:JKLHC-JMU:926-DB
Paragraphs 47 & 48 of the judgment (supra). It has been held that the
Union of India, through the Ministry of Defence, shall determine the
length of qualifying service in accordance with Paragraphs 9 & 18 of the
Pension Regulations of 1961 & 2008 respectively, as well as Note 5
appended to the letter dated 30.10.1987 and, if upon determination of
length of qualifying service, there remains a shortfall of one year or less,
the respondents would be entitled to seek condonation of such
deficiency for the purpose of pension eligibility in accordance with
Paragraph 125 of the Pension Regulations, 1961, or Paragraph 44 of the
Pension Regulations, 2008. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also taken
note of its earlier verdict rendered in case tiled “Union of India Vs.
Surender Singh Parmar, (2015) 3 SCC 404.”
2. In view of the aforesaid, no further adjudication on the issues raised in
these petitions is called for. These petitions, are accordingly, disposed
of, being fully covered by the judgment of Balakrishnan Mullikote
(supra) with a direction to the Union of India to process the cases of the
respondents for the service element of the pension, strictly going in
compliance with the directions contained in the judgment of
Balakrishnan Mullikote (supra).
3. Let the needful be done within a period of six months from today.
(SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR)
JUDGE JUDGE
Jammu:
01.04.2026
Shafqat
Whether this order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether this order is reportable: Yes/No