Disability Pension Broad-Banding Arrears For Eligible Ex-Servicemen Must Be Paid From January 1, 1996 Or Date Of Retirement Without 3-Year Limit: Supreme Court
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe today upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal’s view that arrears arising from broad-banding of disability pension are payable from January 1, 1996 (or, as applicable, the date from which the benefit became due, including the date of retirement), and cannot be limited to only three years before an application is filed. Dismissing the Union of India’s appeal, the Court agreed that once entitlement to such re-computation of disability pension is recognised, arrears must follow from the relevant cut-off date without being curtailed on the ground of delay. The dispute concerned the period for which disability pension arrears should be released to eligible former service personnel.
The appeals were filed by the Union of India and by ex-servicemen under Section 30 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, arising from conflicting decisions of the Armed Forces Tribunal on the period for which arrears of disability pension are payable. In certain cases, the Tribunal directed payment of arrears from specified cut-off dates, while in others it restricted arrears to three years prior to filing of applications.
In the lead matter, the respondent, Indian Air Force personnel enrolled in 1988 and discharged in 2008, was granted disability pension assessed at 20% for life. Following the judgment dated 10.12.2014 in Union of India v. Ram Avtar, he approached the Tribunal seeking broad banding of disability pension to 50% with arrears from the date of discharge. The Tribunal extended the benefit from the date of superannuation.
The Union of India contended that arrears beyond three years were barred by the Limitation Act, 1963 and Section 22 of the Act. The ex-servicemen contended that the right to claim arrears crystallised only after the 2014 judgment and could not be curtailed on grounds of limitation.
The Court recorded the legal basis for disability pension in the governing pension regulations: “The statutory framework governing disability pension under the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 and the Pension Regulation for the Army, 2008, unequivocally recognises the entitlement of personnel retiring or discharged with disability attributable to or aggravated by military service to disability pension.”
While noting when the broad-banding issue attained finality, it stated: “During the interregnum, between 31.01.2001 and 10.12.2014, the rights of disability pensioners remained in a state of suspension, the issue relating to broad banding of disability pension having not attained finality at the hands of this Court.” It added: “The legal position continued to be uncertain until it was settled by a three-Judge bench of this Court in Union of India & Others v. Ram Avtar (supra).” It further recorded: “The judgment rendered on 10.12.2014 removed the impediment that had hitherto obstructed the exercise of the right of ex-servicemen, otherwise entitled, to seek broad banding of their disability pension.”
On the character of pension, with reference to the authorities cited in footnote 5 (D.S. Nakara v Union of India; State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr.; Vijay Kumar v. Central Bank of India & Ors.), the Court stated: “Pension, as authoritatively settled by this Court, is neither a bounty nor an ex gratia payment dependent upon the grace of the State.” It continued: “It is a deferred portion of compensation for past service and, upon fulfilment of the governing conditions, matures into a vested and enforceable right.” It recorded: “Pensionary entitlements, therefore, partake the character of property, and cannot be withheld, reduced, or extinguished except by authority of law” and applied this to disability pension: “This principle applies with full vigour to disability pension, which is grounded not merely in length of service, but in the impairment suffered by a member of the Armed Forces in the course of, or attributable to, the service rendered to the nation.”
On uniform application of the benefit after judicial affirmation, it recorded: “The Union of India, as a model employer, is expected to act with fairness, consistency and even-handedness in the administration of benefits conferred upon those who have served the nation.” It stated: “When a benefit is recognised by a policy and affirmed by judicial pronouncement, its application cannot be selective or uneven.” It added: “The judgment rendered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Ram Avtar’s case (supra) was a judgment in rem and, therefore, the benefit of same ought to have been extended by Union of India to the eligible ex-servicemen instead of requiring them to file original applications before the Tribunal seeking their entitlement.”
Turning to the Union’s own policy communications and the order dated 18.04.2016, the Court recorded: “The order dated 18.04.2016 was a conscious policy determination taken with full financial concurrence.” It then stated: “Thus, where the State itself, by a conscious policy decision, has determined that arrears of disability pension are payable from a specified cut off date, it is not open to it to subsequently resile and contend that such arrears ought to be confined to a period of three years preceding the claim.” It added: “To permit such a course, would amount to acknowledging the right in principle while denying its substantive content in effect.”
Referring to the precedents (K.J.S. Bhuttar v. Union of India & Anr.; Davinder Singh v. Union of India & Ors.; Madan Prasad Sinha v. Union of India & Ors.; Piyush Bahuguna; Bijender Singh v. Union of India), the Court stated: “This Court has, in a consistent line of decisions, recognised that right to receive disability pension is a valuable right and once found due, the benefit of the same has to be given from the date it became due.” It concluded: “The same cannot be curtailed by restricting the benefit to a period of three years preceding the filing of the original application.”
On limitation and the reliance placed on Tarsem Singh, the Court recorded: “The contention advanced on behalf of the Union of India that the claim for arrears of disability pension is barred by Limitation Act, cannot be accepted.” It added: “The reliance placed by the appellant on the decision of a two-Judge Bench of this Court in Tarsem Singh (supra) is of no assistance to it, as the legal landscape did not remain static after decision in Tarsem Singh.” It further stated: “the decision in Ram Avtar (supra), decided the issue of applicability of instruction dated 31.01.2001 and the aforesaid decision is in rem.”
The Court stated, “we do not find any merit in the appeals filed by the Union of India. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Union of India are dismissed. The orders passed by the Tribunal… in so far as they restrict the benefit of arrears of disability pension to three years preceding the filing of original application are quashed and set aside.”
“The appellants… are held entitled to disability pension including the benefit of broad banding, due to them, with effect from 01.01.1996 or 01.01.2006, as the case may be, along with interest @ 6% per annum.” It added, “Accordingly, the aforesaid appeals are allowed. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.”
Case Title: Union of India Through Its Secretary & Ors. v. Sgt Girish Kumar & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 149
Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 6820–6824 of 2018 and connected matters
Bench: Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
