Union of Indiav.Sgt Girish Kumar & Ors

Synopsis

This batch of appeals, arising from conflicting decisions of the Armed Forces Tribunal, presented the pivotal question whether the arrears of disability pension—once the entitlement to broad banding of disability percentage is judicially affirmed—can be curtailed by invoking the principles of limitation, delay or laches. The Supreme Court, speaking through Alok Aradhe, J., held that disability pension is a vested right partaking the character of property under Article 300A of the Constitution; it is neither a bounty nor an ex gratia payment. Consequently, arrears cannot be restricted to a period of three years preceding the filing of the application. The Court emphatically ruled that once the right crystallises by a judgment in rem (Union of India v. Ram Avtar, 2014) and is reinforced by a conscious policy decision of the Union of India to pay arrears from 1.1.1996 or 1.1.2006, the government cannot resile from that position. The judgment settles the law on the recurring nature of disability pension and the inapplicability of Section 22 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 in such fact situations.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

Union of India Through Its Secretary & Ors. v. SGT Girish Kumar & Ors. etc.
Civil Appeal Nos. 6820-6824 of 2018 with connected matters
Coram: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J. and Alok Aradhe, J.
Citation: 2026 INSC 149
Date of Judgment: February 12, 2026
Bench Strength: Division Bench (Two Judges)
Nature: Non-Constitutional Bench Judgment (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction under Section 30, Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007)

2. Legal Framework

2.1. Subject Matter and Nature of Dispute
The litigation concerns the entitlement of retired/invalided Armed Forces personnel to disability pension and, more specifically, the period for which arrears of such pension are payable after the benefit of “broad banding” of disability percentage is extended to them. The dispute arises from the application of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961/2008 and the executive instructions issued by the Ministry of Defence pursuant to the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission.

2.2. Major Statutes and Constitutional Provisions Involved

• Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007
  Section 22: Limitation period for filing application before the Tribunal (three years from the date of cause of action).
  Section 30: Appeal to the Supreme Court against final orders or judgments of the Tribunal.

• Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (and 2008) – Provide for grant of disability element of pension to personnel discharged on account of disability attributable to or aggravated by military service.

• Limitation Act, 1963 – Principles governing bar of claims on account of delay and laches; continuing wrong.

• Constitution of India, 1950
  Article 300A: No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. The Court held that disability pension, being a vested right, is property within the meaning of this Article.

2.3. Key Executive Instructions and Policies

• Letter dated 31.1.2001 – Implementation of Fifth Pay Commission recommendations; introduced broad banding of disability percentage (para 7.2).

• Communication dated 20.7.2006 – Removal of 20% disability cap in cases of invalidation.

• Letter dated 19.1.2010 – Extension of broad banding benefit to pre-1996 invalided cases subject to certain conditions.

• Order dated 18.4.2016 – After the decision in Ram Avtar, the Government consciously decided to grant arrears of disability pension with effect from 1.1.1996 or 1.1.2006, as the case may be, without any curtailment.

2.4. Precedents Referred and Relied Upon

By the Union of India:

• Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab (2008) 8 SCC 123 – On restriction of arrears in service matters to three years preceding the claim.

• State of Uttarakhand v. Raj Kumar Sharma (2019) 18 SCC 570 – On condonation of delay and limitation.

By the Ex-servicemen and by the Court:

• Union of India v. Ram Avtar (2014) (Three-Judge Bench) – Judgment in rem affirming entitlement of superannuated personnel to broad banding of disability pension.

• D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 305 – Pension as a right, not a bounty.

• Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar (1971) 2 SCC 330 – Pension is property under Article 300A.

• State of Punjab v. Justice S.S. Dewan (1997) 4 SCC 569 – Recurring right to pension and arrears.

• Shiv Dass v. Union of India (2007) 9 SCC 274 – Delay and laches; continuing wrong.

The Court also considered various Full Bench decisions of the Armed Forces Tribunal.

3. Relevant Facts of the Case

3.1. Representative Facts (Civil Appeal Nos. 6820-6824 of 2018)

• The respondent, SGT Girish Kumar, was enrolled in the Indian Air Force on 30.03.1988.

• He was discharged on 31.03.2008 on completion of tenure.

• The Invalidating Medical Board assessed his disability at 20%, attributable to and aggravated by military service, and he was granted disability pension accordingly.

• On 10.12.2014, a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Union of India v. Ram Avtar held that personnel retiring on superannuation with disability attributable to military service are also entitled to the benefit of broad banding of disability percentage (i.e., rounding up of disability to 50% even if assessed at less than 50%).

• Pursuant to this judgment, the respondent approached the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) on 20.10.2016 seeking broad banding of his disability to 50% and arrears from the date of discharge.

• The AFT, by order dated 13.12.2017, allowed the application and directed payment of arrears from the date of superannuation.

3.2. Reference to Full Bench of the Tribunal

• In view of conflicting orders by coordinate benches on the issue of arrears, a Full Bench of the AFT was constituted.

• By order dated 01.12.2017, the Full Bench held:
  Ram Avtar is a judgment in rem.
  Denial of arrears amounts to deprivation of property.
  Disability pension is a recurring right and cannot be denied on limitation or laches.
  Section 22 of the AFT Act is not attracted in such cases.

3.3. Post-Ram Avtar Policy Decision

• On 18.04.2016, the Government of India issued an order expressly approving payment of broad banding benefits and arrears from 01.01.1996 or 01.01.2006 (as applicable) to all eligible personnel, with full financial concurrence.

3.4. Competing Appeals

• Union of India filed appeals challenging the AFT’s direction to pay arrears without any time restriction.

• Ex-servicemen filed cross-appeals seeking arrears from their respective dates of retirement/discharge (i.e., full arrears).

4. Issues Before the Supreme Court

4.1. Principal Issue
Whether, upon judicial affirmation of the right to broad banding of disability pension, the arrears of such pension can be restricted to a period of three years prior to the filing of the original application before the Armed Forces Tribunal.

4.2. Ancillary Issues

• Whether the claim for arrears of disability pension is barred by the Limitation Act, 1963 or by Section 22 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.

• Whether the judgment in Ram Avtar operates as a judgment in rem, thereby crystallising the right of all similarly situated ex-servicemen from the date of the judgment or from the date the policy ought to have been applied.

• Whether the Government, having taken a conscious policy decision to pay arrears from specified cut-off dates, can subsequently resile from that position by invoking delay and laches.

• Whether the denial of full arrears amounts to deprivation of property under Article 300A of the Constitution.

5. Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court laid down the following core principles:

5.1. Nature of Disability Pension

• Disability pension is not a bounty or ex gratia payment; it is a deferred portion of compensation for past service and for the impairment suffered in the course of national duty.

• Upon fulfilment of eligibility conditions, it matures into a vested and enforceable right.

• It partakes the character of property and thus cannot be withheld, reduced, or extinguished except by authority of law. Deprivation thereof attracts Article 300A.

5.2. Effect of a Judgment in Rem

• The decision of the three-Judge Bench in Ram Avtar (10.12.2014) is a judgment in rem. It finally settled the legal position that superannuated personnel are entitled to broad banding.

• Consequently, the impediment that had prevented ex-servicemen from claiming the benefit stood removed on that date.

• The right to approach the Tribunal accrued only on 10.12.2014; hence, applications filed thereafter cannot be stigmatised as delayed.

5.3. Government’s Own Policy Decision – Estoppel

• The Government’s order dated 18.04.2016, issued with full financial approval, consciously directed payment of arrears from 01.01.1996/01.01.2006.

• Having taken such a policy decision, the Government cannot be permitted to resile and contend that arrears should be restricted to three years. Doing so would acknowledge the right while denying its substance, amounting to an arbitrary deprivation of property.

5.4. Inapplicability of Limitation and Section 22 of the AFT Act

• The claim for arrears of disability pension is a continuing wrong and a recurring right. Each month’s pension gives rise to a fresh cause of action.

• However, the more significant reason is that the cause of action crystallised only upon the Ram Avtar judgment. Prior thereto, the legal position was uncertain, and the benefit was wrongfully denied under the impugned instructions.

• The decision in Tarsem Singh is distinguishable because it dealt with claims based on existing rights, whereas here the very entitlement was settled only in 2014.

• Section 22 of the AFT Act, which prescribes a three-year limitation from the date of cause of action, does not operate as a bar because the cause of action arose only after Ram Avtar.

5.5. Duty of the State as a Model Employer

• The Union of India, as a model employer, is expected to act with fairness, consistency, and even-handedness. It ought to have extended the benefit to all eligible ex-servicemen suo motu instead of compelling them to litigate.

6. New Legal Framework / Principle Established

While the judgment does not enact a new statutory framework, it authoritatively settles several jurisprudential ambiguities:

6.1. Clarification on the Interplay Between Judicial Declarations and Limitation

• Where a superior court renders a judgment in rem declaring the true interpretation of a service/pension benefit, the cause of action for seeking arrears accrues not from the original denial but from the date of such judicial declaration, provided the benefit was not earlier recognised by the employer.

• The limitation period under special statutes (Section 22, AFT Act) or general law (Limitation Act) will be computed from that date.

6.2. Recurring Rights and the Doctrine of Continuing Wrong

• The judgment reaffirms that pension, including disability pension, is a recurring right. Each month’s denial is a fresh wrong. However, it goes further: once the right is declared, the employer’s obligation to pay arrears relates back to the date when the benefit ought to have been paid as per the correct legal position.

6.3. Constitutional Dimension of Pensionary Arrears

• The judgment expressly holds that deprivation of accrued arrears—especially when acknowledged by government policy—infringes Article 300A. This elevates the claim for pensionary arrears from a mere contractual or statutory right to a constitutionally protected property right.

6.4. Preclusion of the Government from Inconsistent Stands

• Where the Government has taken a conscious policy decision on the advice of the Ministry of Finance to pay arrears from a specific date, it cannot, in judicial proceedings, adopt a contrary stance to defeat the very same arrears. This principle, though akin to promissory estoppel, is grounded in the requirement of non-arbitrariness under Article 14.

7. Examination and Analysis by the Supreme Court

7.1. Statutory and Policy Framework
The Court meticulously traced the evolution of the disability pension regime:

• Para 7.2 of the 31.1.2001 letter introduced broad banding but limited it to personnel invalidated out of service.

• 20.7.2006 communication removed the 20% cap for invalidation cases.

• 19.1.2010 letter extended the benefit to pre-1996 invalided cases.

• The anomaly: Superannuated personnel with disability were excluded.

• This anomaly was struck down by the AFT in 2010 and upheld by this Court in Ram Avtar (2014).

7.2. The Ram Avtar Judgment and Its In Rem Effect
The Court emphasised that the three-Judge Bench in Ram Avtar did not merely decide individual cases; it interpreted the policy and held that exclusion of superannuated personnel was arbitrary. Hence, the judgment operates in rem. The Union’s failure to implement it universally forced ex-servicemen to file individual applications.

7.3. Consideration of the Limitation Argument
The Union’s primary submission—relying on Tarsem Singh—was that even in continuing wrongs, arrears cannot exceed three years. The Court distinguished:

• In Tarsem Singh, the right was already in existence; the claimant merely delayed.

• Here, the right itself was disputed until 2014. The government’s own policy denied the benefit, and litigation continued up to this Court.

• Moreover, the government’s 18.4.2016 order expressly sanctioned arrears from 1996/2006. That order was not challenged; it remains operative.

7.4. Article 300A and Deprivation of Property
The Court observed that once the government acknowledges the entitlement and fixes a cut-off date for arrears, withholding payment is not merely a fiscal decision but a deprivation without authority of law. The right to receive the arrears had crystallised; it was no longer inchoate.

7.5. Response to the Counter-Argument of Financial Burden
Though not explicitly recorded in the submissions, the Court implicitly rejected any plea of financial burden by noting that the policy decision of 18.4.2016 was taken with full financial concurrence. The State cannot approbate and reprobate.

7.6. Treatment of Conflicting Tribunal Decisions
The Court approved the Full Bench’s reasoning and set aside all Tribunal orders that had restricted arrears to three years. It granted uniformity and finality.

7.7. Award of Interest
The Court directed payment of 6% per annum interest on the arrears. This is a standard compensatory measure to offset the delay and inflationary erosion.

8. Critical Analysis and Final Outcome

8.1. Strengths of the Judgment

• Doctrinal Clarity: The judgment lucidly distinguishes between a pre-existing right and a right crystallised by judicial declaration. This distinction is crucial for limitation jurisprudence in service matters.

• Constitutional Morality: By invoking Article 300A, the Court has reinforced that the State’s financial actions affecting citizens’ entitlements must be tested against constitutional guarantees, not merely administrative convenience.

• Victory for Veterans: The decision upholds the dignity and rights of Armed Forces personnel who suffer disability in service of the nation. It prevents the government from using procedural technicalities to defeat substantive entitlements.

• Judicial Consistency: The judgment aligns with the consistent line of precedents (Nakara, Deokinandan, Ram Avtar) and brings quietus to a long-standing controversy.

8.2. Potential Criticisms

• Limited Discussion on Financial Impact: While the government’s own policy sanctioned arrears, the cumulative financial burden on the exchequer may be substantial. The Court did not directly address this, though it may be implied that the government had already assessed and accepted the liability.

• Reliance on ‘Conscious Policy Decision’: The judgment heavily rests on the 18.4.2016 order. If, hypothetically, the government had not issued such an order, would the result be different? Possibly the Court would still have awarded arrears from the date of Ram Avtar (2014) rather than 1996/2006. The judgment leaves this nuance open.

• No Specific Overruling of Tarsem Singh: Although distinguished, Tarsem Singh was not overruled. Future litigants may still face arguments that Tarsem Singh governs cases where the right was always clear. The Court could have explicitly confined Tarsem Singh to its facts.

8.3. Broader Implications

• For Armed Forces personnel, the judgment is a landmark. It ensures that disability pensioners are not forced into repeated litigation for arrears.

• For civil service pensioners, the principle may be extended: where a court finally declares a pensionary benefit, limitation for arrears may be computed from the date of the judgment.

• For government policy-making, the judgment serves as a stern reminder that policies once framed and benefits acknowledged must be implemented fully; selective or truncated implementation invites constitutional censure.

8.4. Final Outcome

Head Details Appeals by Union of India Dismissed. Appeals by Ex-servicemen Allowed. Orders set asideAll impugned orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal restricting arrears to three years are quashed.Relief grantedEx-servicemen are entitled to arrears of disability pension (including broad banding) from 01.01.1996 or 01.01.2006, as per their eligibility, with interest @ 6% per annum.CostsNo order as to costs.Pending applicationsDisposed of.

(MCQs)

Q1. Under which constitutional provision did the Supreme Court hold that denial of accrued arrears of disability pension amounts to deprivation of property?
(a) Article 14
(b) Article 19(1)(f) (since repealed)
(c) Article 300A
(d) Article 21

Q2. What was the date of the three-Judge Bench judgment in Union of India v. Ram Avtar, which finally settled the entitlement of superannuated Armed Forces personnel to broad banding of disability pension?
(a) 31.01.2001
(b) 20.07.2006
(c) 10.12.2014
(d) 18.04.2016

Q3. Section 22 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 prescribes a limitation period of for filing an application before the Tribunal?
(a) One year
(b) Two years
(c) Three years
(d) Six years

Q4. Which of the following was NOT a reason given by the Supreme Court for rejecting the Union of India’s plea to restrict arrears of disability pension to three years?
(a) The judgment in Ram Avtar is a judgment in rem and the right crystallised only on that date.
(b) The Government’s own policy decision dated 18.04.2016 directed payment of arrears from 01.01.1996/01.01.2006.
(c) The Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to claims before the Armed Forces Tribunal.
(d) Disability pension is a recurring right and each month’s denial is a fresh cause of action.