Disability Pension Is Not Largesse but a Recognition of Sacrifice: Supreme Court Bars Union from Curtailing Arrears to Three Years

“To Acknowledge the Right in Principle but Deny It in Effect Would Violate Article 300A”, Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling on disability pension, holding that arrears cannot be restricted to three years prior to filing an application before the Armed Forces Tribunal by invoking limitation, delay, or laches.

A Bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe dismissed the appeals filed by the Union of India and allowed the appeals of ex-servicemen, directing that disability pension with the benefit of broad banding be paid from 01.01.1996 or 01.01.2006, as applicable, along with interest at 6% per annum.

The Court emphatically held that once entitlement stood judicially affirmed in Union of India v. Ram Avtar (2014), arrears flowing from that entitlement could not be truncated.

Conflicting AFT Orders on Arrears

The controversy arose from divergent decisions of the Armed Forces Tribunal. While some Benches granted arrears of disability pension from the applicable cut-off dates, others restricted arrears to three years prior to the filing of original applications, citing limitation and delay.

The respondents, including SGT Girish Kumar, had retired with disability attributable to or aggravated by military service. After the three-Judge Bench judgment in Ram Avtar extended the benefit of “broad banding” to those retiring on superannuation (and not merely invalidated out), they approached the Tribunal seeking re-computation of pension.

While broad banding was granted, in some cases arrears were limited to three years. This led to the present batch of appeals.

“Ram Avtar Is a Judgment in Rem”: Rights Crystallised on 10.12.2014

The Court traced the statutory and policy framework under the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 and 2008. It noted that instructions dated 31.01.2001 had denied broad banding to personnel superannuating with disability, a position struck down by the Tribunal and ultimately affirmed by the Supreme Court in Ram Avtar on 10.12.2014.

The Bench observed that between 2001 and 2014, the rights of disability pensioners remained “in a state of suspension.” The impediment was removed only by the three-Judge Bench ruling.

Crucially, the Court held that Ram Avtar was a judgment in rem, not confined to individual litigants. The Union of India ought to have uniformly extended the benefit instead of compelling ex-servicemen to litigate.

The right to approach the Tribunal, the Court held, accrued only after 10.12.2014 when the law attained finality.

“Pension Is Not a Bounty”: Disability Pension as Property under Article 300A

Reaffirming settled constitutional doctrine, the Court held that pension is neither a bounty nor an act of grace. It is “a deferred portion of compensation for past service” and, once conditions are fulfilled, matures into a vested and enforceable right.

The Bench declared that pensionary entitlements partake the character of property and cannot be withheld or curtailed except by authority of law. Disability pension, in particular, is “not a matter of largesse, but a recognition of sacrifice made in service of the nation.”

Any deprivation of accrued arrears without legal sanction would amount to infraction of Article 300A of the Constitution.

“The State Cannot Resile from Its Own Policy Decision”

The Court noted that the Union of India had itself issued communications reflecting a conscious policy decision to grant arrears from 01.01.1996 or 01.01.2006, as applicable. Letters dated 15.09.2014, 18.04.2016, and 10.10.2018 demonstrated financial concurrence and approval for implementation of judicial directions.

The Court held that once the State, through a deliberate policy choice, had decided to confer arrears from specified dates, it could not subsequently argue that arrears should be confined to three years preceding the claim.

The Bench observed that to permit such a course would be “to acknowledge the right in principle while denying its substantive content in effect.”

Limitation and Section 22 of the AFT Act: Objections Rejected

The Union relied on Tarsem Singh and other precedents to argue that even in cases of continuing wrong, arrears could not extend beyond the prescribed period.

The Supreme Court rejected this contention.

First, it held that the issue of broad banding attained finality only in Ram Avtar. Therefore, the cause of action effectively crystallised on 10.12.2014.

Second, the Court distinguished Tarsem Singh, noting that the present cases involved re-computation of existing disability pension, not a stale claim for initial entitlement.

Third, disability pension was characterised as a recurring and continuing right. Once found due, arrears must flow from the date of accrual and cannot be artificially curtailed.

Accordingly, the bar under Section 22 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act and the plea of delay or laches were held inapplicable.

Full Arrears with Interest

The Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Union of India.

It set aside Tribunal orders that had restricted arrears to three years preceding the filing of original applications.

Ex-servicemen were declared entitled to disability pension, including broad banding, from 01.01.1996 or 01.01.2006, as applicable, along with interest at 6% per annum.

There was no order as to costs.

Uniform Justice for Those Who Served

This judgment reinforces three foundational principles:

First, pensionary rights are constitutional property rights protected under Article 300A.

Second, judgments in rem must be implemented uniformly without compelling repetitive litigation.

Third, recurring entitlements like disability pension cannot be truncated by invoking limitation where the right itself crystallised only after judicial clarification.

In emphatic terms, the Supreme Court has reminded the State that benefits recognising sacrifice in military service cannot be diluted by procedural technicalities.

Date of Decision: 12 February 2026