JUDGMENT : Muralee Krishna, J. 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the respondents in R.A. No.11 of 2023 in O.A. No.125 of 2021, before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi (‘the Tribunal’ for short), challenging the order dated 21.06.2023 passed by the Tribunal, whereby the petitioners/respondents are directed to pay 2/3 rd of minimum pension of a regular Sepoy to the respondent/applicant with effect from 01.01.2016 along with entitled allowances. 2. The facts in brief, which led to the filing of this writ petition, are as follows: The respondent joined the Indian Army on 17.08.1960. After 7 years of regular service, was transferred to reserve service and discharged from reserve service on 30.09.1975. On discharge, was granted with Reservist pension with effect from 01.10.1975 for life. Claiming that as per Regulation 155 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, is entitled to receive 2/3 rd of the Sepoy rank pension as a Reservist, but with effect from 01.07.2014 (OROP), reservist pension was not enhanced by the respondents to 2/3 rd of the Sepoy rank pension, the respondent approached the Tribunal with the O.A. filed under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. By the order dated 13.04.2022, though the Tribunal found that the respondent is entitled to receive 2/3 rd of the Sepoy rank pension as a Reservist, dismissed the original application holding that the respondent is receiving reservist pension of Rs.9,000/- with effect from 01.01.2016, as authorised by the Government of India vide PCDA(P) Allahabad circular No.570 dated 31 st October 2016 and hence there is no legal validity in his claim for enhanced reservist pension at Rs.4,443/ from 01.07.2014 and Rs.11,420/- from 01.01.2016. The respondent then filed R.A. No.11 of 2023 before the Tribunal, pointing out that there is an error apparent on the face of the record in the said order. By the impugned order dated 21.06.2023, the Tribunal found that there is error crept in the dismissal order of the O.A. by restricting the pension to Rs.9,000/- from 01.01.2016 and not at 2/3 rd of the minimum pension of a regular Sepoy as on 01.01.2016 as per the provisions in Regulation 155 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part I). 3. Heard Sri. R.V. Sreejith, the learned Senior Central Government Counsel (SCGC) appearing for the petitioners. 3. Heard Sri. R.V. Sreejith, the learned Senior Central Government Counsel (SCGC) appearing for the petitioners. In spite of service of notice, none appeared for the respondent. 4. The learned SCGC submitted that the pension payable to the respondent was revised from time to time according to pay commissions. But, as per the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, Department of Ex-servicemen Welfare letter dated 03.02.2016 and subsequent circular No.555 dated 04.02.2016, the respondent who was discharged from service as a reservist and has already been paid reservist pension, therefore not eligible for enhancement of pension. The Tribunal went wrong by allowing the review application filed by the respondent. 5. Admittedly, the respondent/applicant was discharged from service as a reservist on 30.09.1975. He has been in receipt of reservist pension. But, the respondent claims that he has not been paid the legitimately entitled reservist pension at 2/3 rd of the minimum rank pension of a Sepoy on enhanced rates. Thus, according to him, he is entitled to receive Rs.4,443/- per month from 01.07.2014 against Rs.3500/- being paid to him, and Rs.11,420/- per month against Rs.9,000/- being paid to him with effect from 01.01.2016. 6. Regulation 155 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part I), which is extracted in Paragraph 12 of the order of the Tribunal dated 13.04.2022 in the O.A. deals with pension payable to reservist, reads thus: “155. An OR reservist who is not in receipt of a service pension may be granted on completion of the prescribed combined colour and reserve qualifying service, of not less than 15 years, a reservist pension equal to 2/3 rd of the lowest pension admissible to a Sepoy, but in no case less than Rs.375/- p.m. on his transfer to pension establishment either on completion of his term of engagement or prematurely irrespective of the period of colour service.” 7. Reading the said provision along with PCDA(P) circular Nos. 430, 501 and 555, which were extracted in paragraph 10 of the order passed in the original application, the Tribunal found that the respondent is entitled to 2/3 rd of the minimum pension of a Sepoy as revised from time to time, but is not entitled to OROP benefit. Reading the said provision along with PCDA(P) circular Nos. 430, 501 and 555, which were extracted in paragraph 10 of the order passed in the original application, the Tribunal found that the respondent is entitled to 2/3 rd of the minimum pension of a Sepoy as revised from time to time, but is not entitled to OROP benefit. However, by an erroneous finding that a sum of Rs.9,000/- received by the respondent covers 2/3 rd of the minimum pension of a regular Sepoy as on 01.01.2016, the O.A. was dismissed by the Tribunal. Later, on realising the mistake on a conjoint reading of Regulation 155 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part I) and circular 570 of PCDA(P) dated 31.10.2016, the Tribunal corrected the order passed in the O.A. as said above. Paragraph 4 of the Circular 570 of PCDA(P) dated 31.10.2016, which applies to Defence Forces Pensioners/family pensioners as on 01.01.2016, which is extracted in paragraph 12 of the impugned order reads thus: “4.4 Minimum and Maximum Pension: The minimum basic pension with effect from 01.01.2016 will be Rs.9,000/- per month (excluding the element of additional pension admissible to old pensioners). The upper ceiling of pension/family pension will be 50% and 30% respectively of the highest pa in the Government. The highest pay in the Government is Rs.2,50,000/- with effect from 01.01.2016. 5. Where the revised pension/family pension in terms of para 5.1 of Govt. letter No.17(01)/2016-D (Pen/Pol) dated 29 th October 2016 works out to an amount less than Rs.9,000/- the same shall be stepped up to Rs.9,000/-. This will be regarded as pension/family pension with effect from 01.01.2016.” 8. Admittedly, the respondent enrolled in the Indian Army on 17.08.1960 and was on regular service for 7 years. Thereafter, he was transferred to reserve service and discharged on 30.09.1975 and thus he has altogether 15 years 1 month and 15 days of total service. The petitioners have no case that the respondent is not entitled for reservist pension. He is qualified for reservist pension as mentioned in Regulation 155 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part I) as he had completed the prescribed combined colour and reserve service of not less than 15 years. The petitioners have no case that the respondent is not entitled for reservist pension. He is qualified for reservist pension as mentioned in Regulation 155 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part I) as he had completed the prescribed combined colour and reserve service of not less than 15 years. Having anxiously considered the materials placed on record in the light of the provisions (supra), and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no sufficient ground to say that the Tribunal grossly erred in reaching to a right finding while passing the impugned order. 9. At this juncture the learned SCGC appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Apex Court by an interim order interfered with the judgment dated 27.09.2024 in C.W.P. No. 17046 of 2024 rendered by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Union of India and others v. Darshan Singh Bal and others, whereby the order of the Armed Forces Tribunal granting revised reservist pension to the pensioner was affirmed by the High Court. But we are of the view that each and every case is based upon the facts and cannot be treated as an order in rem for adjudication of the dispute, in view of the judgment dated 24.06.2024 in WP (C) No.43207 of 2023 and connected cases passed by this Court. In this view of the matter, findings of fact and law arrived at by the Tribunal do not require any interference by this Court, exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed.