Union Of India Through Its Secretary vs. Sgt Girish Kumar And Ors.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2026 INSC 149
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.6820-6824 OF 2018

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH
ITS SECRETARY & ORS. … APPELLANTS

VERSUS

SGT GIRISH KUMAR AND ORS. ETC. … RESPONDENTS

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8286-8287 OF 2018
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1555 OF 2024
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2515 OF 2019
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(@ DIARY NO(S). 34570 OF 2019)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3091 OF 2024
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(@ SLP (C) NO(S). 19082 OF 2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(@ S.L.P. (C) NO(S). OF 2026)
(DIARY NO(S). 35558 OF 2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(@ S.L.P. (C) NO(S). OF 2026)
(DIARY NO(S). 36222 OF 2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(@ S.L.P. (C) NO(S). OF 2026)
(DIARY NO(S). 36816 OF 2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(@ S.L.P. (C) NO(S). OF 2026)
(DIARY NO(S). 36817 OF 2025)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
KAPIL TANDON
Date: 2026.02.12
17:59:50 IST
Reason:

1


CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(@ S.L.P. (C) NO(S). OF 2026)
(DIARY NO(S). 36820 OF 2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1724 OF 2023
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(@ SLP (C) NO(S). 14571 OF 2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(@ SLP (C) NO(S). 14572 OF 2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9637 OF 2025
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(@ SLP (C) NO(S).21766 OF 2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(@ S.L.P. (C) NO(S). OF 2026)
(DIARY NO(S).34197 OF 2025)

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(@ S.L.P. (C) NO(S). OF 2026)
(DIARY NO(S). 36809 OF 2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(@ S.L.P. (C) NO(S). OF 2026)
(DIARY NO(S). 46724 OF 2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(@ S.L.P. (C) NO(S). OF 2026)
(DIARY NO(S). 50514 OF 2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(@ S.L.P. (C) NO(S). OF 2026)
(DIARY NO(S). 62180 OF 2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(@ S.L.P. (C) NO(S). OF 2026)
(DIARY NO(S). 69396 OF 2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(@ SLP (C) NO(S). 25515 OF 2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(@ S.L.P. (C) NO(S). OF 2026)
(DIARY NO(S). 38429 OF 2025)

2


CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(@ S.L.P. (C) NO(S). OF 2026)
(DIARY NO(S). 41932 OF 2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(@ S.L.P. (C) NO(S). OF 2026)
(DIARY NO(S). 41937 OF 2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(@ SLP (C) NO(S). 25518 OF 2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(@ SLP (C) NO(S). 25517 OF 2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(@ S.L.P. (C) NO(S). OF 2026)
(DIARY NO(S). 47828 OF 2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(@ S.L.P. (C) NO(S). OF 2026)
(DIARY NO(S). 49078 OF 2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(@ S.L.P. (C) NO(S). OF 2026)
(DIARY NO(S). 59291 OF 2025)
AND
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(@ S.L.P. (C) NO(S). OF 2026)
(DIARY NO(S). 73845 OF 2025)


J U D G M E N T

ALOK ARADHE, J.

Leave granted.
1.
These appeals, filed both by the Union of India and by Ex-
2.
servicemen, under Section 30 of the Armed Forces Tribunal
Act, 2007 (‘Act’), arise out of conflicting decisions of the Armed
3


Forces Tribunal (‘Tribunal’) concerning the period for which
arrears of disability pension are payable. The Tribunal in
certain cases directed payment of arrears of disability pension
from specified cut-off dates, whereas, in others, restricted such
benefits to 3 years prior to filing of the applications before the
Tribunal. The present batch of appeals require this Court to
determine whether entitlement to disability pension, once
judicially affirmed, can be curtailed beyond a prescribed period
by invoking limitation, delay or laches.
(i) FACTUAL MATRIX
3. For the sake of convenience, the facts in Civil
Appeal Nos.6820-6824 of 2018 are noticed. The respondent in
C.A. Nos.6820-6824 of 2018 was enrolled on 30.03.1988 in the
Indian Air Force and was discharged on 31.03.2008 upon
completion of tenure. At the time of discharge, he was assessed
with disability attributable to and aggravated by military
service at 20% for life and was granted disability pension
accordingly. Pursuant to judgment rendered by a three-Judge
Bench of this Court dated 10.12.2014 in Union of India &
1
Others v. Ram Avtar , the respondent approached the
Tribunal on 20.10.2016 by filing an original application,

1
Union of India & Others. v. Ram Avtar, 2014 SCC Online SC 1761
4


seeking broad banding of disability pension to 50% along with
arrears from the date of discharge. The Tribunal, by an order
dated 13.12.2017, extended the benefit of broad banding of
pension to the respondent from the date of his superannuation.
(ii) REFERENCE TO THE FULL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL
4. In view of the conflicting orders passed by the coordinate
benches of the tribunal, on the issue regarding grant of arrears
of disability pension beyond a period of three years, the same
was referred for consideration to the larger bench of the
tribunal. The full bench of the tribunal by an order dated
01.12.2017, inter alia held that the decision of this Court in
Union of India & Others v. Ram Avtar (supra) is a judgment in
rem and denial of arrears of disability pension amounts to
deprivation of property. It was further held that disability
pension is a recurring right and the right to claim the same
cannot be denied either on the ground of limitation or delay or
laches. It was also held that Section 22 of the Act does not apply
to the fact situation of the case. Accordingly, the reference was
answered.
The grievance of the Union of India in the appeals filed by it, is
5.
confined only to the direction to make payment of arrears of
5


disability pension with effect from 01.01.1996 or 01.01.2006,
as the case may be, without restriction of any time limit to
claim arrears of disability pension. The ex-servicemen in their
Civil Appeals claim the benefit of arrears of disability pension
from the date of their retirement/discharge.
(iii) SUBMISSIONS
The learned Attorney General, appearing on behalf of the Union
6.
of India, submitted that the grievance of the Union is confined to
the direction to pay arrears of disability pension beyond a period
of three years. It was contended that claims for arrears of
disability pension are governed by the provisions of the
Limitation Act, 1963, as well as Section 22 of the Act, and that
even in cases of continuing wrong, arrears cannot extend
beyond the prescribed period of limitation. In support of the
aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the
2
decisions of this Court .

2
Shri Madhav Laxman Vaikunthe v. State of Mysore, AIR 1962 SC 8; Anand Swarup Singh v. State of
Punjab, (1972) 4 SCC 744; P.L. Shah v. Union of India & Anr. (1989) 1 SCC 546; M.R. Gupta v. Union of
India & Ors. (1995) 5 SCC 628; Shiv Dass v. Union of India & Ors. (2007) 9 SCC 274; Union of India &
Ors. v. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648; M. Siddiq (Ram Janmabhumi Temple case) v. Mahant Suresh
Das & Ors. (2020) 1 SCC 1; P.K. Kapur v. Union of India & Ors. (2007) 9 SCC 425; State of Madhya
Pradesh & Ors. v. Yogendra Shrivastava, (2010) 12 SCC 538; K.J.S. Buttar v. Union of India & Anr.,
(2011) 11 SCC 429; Asger Ibrahim Amin v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, (2016) 13 SCC 797;
Davinder Singh v. Union of India & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 9946 of 2016 order dated 20.09.2016; and
Union of India v. SGT Girish Kumar, Supreme Court Order dated 13.07.2018 in Civil Appeal Diary
No.21811 of 2018.
6


7. Learned counsel appearing for the ex-servicemen, on the other
hand, submitted that the right to claim arrears crystallised only
upon the decision of this Court dated 10.12.2014, which is a
judgment in rem . It was argued that denial or restriction of
arrears of disability pension would amount to deprivation of a
vested and recurring right, and that the issue is no longer res
integra. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has
3
been placed on the decisions of this Court and decisions of the
4
Tribunal .
(iv) ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
The solitary issue which arises for consideration is whether the
8.
benefit of arrears of disability pension can be restricted to three
years prior to filing of the original applications before the
Tribunal.
(v) REASONS AND ANALYSIS
9. The statutory framework governing disability pension under the
Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 and the Pension

3
Order dated 01.09.2025 of Civil Appeal No.11311 of 2025 in Union of India & Ors. v. Reet MP Singh &
Anr.; KJS Buttar v. Union of India (supra); Union of India v. Ram Avtar (supra); Ex Sigman Dharam
Singh v. Union of India (Civil Appeal No.3882/2009); Davinder Singh v. Union of India (supra); Madan
Prasad Sinha v. Union of India & Ors., (2019) 15 SCC 232; Union of India & Ors. v. Piyush Bahuguna
(Order dated 25.03.2022 passed in Diary No.10713/2021) and Bijender Singh v. Union of India & Ors.,
2025 SCC Online SC 895.

4
Ram Avtar v. Union of India (Judgment dated 04.08.2010); Piyush Bahuguna v. Union of India
(Judgment dated 10.10.2018) and Harbans Lal v. Union of India and Others (order dated 24.05.2018 in
OA No.1789 of 2018).
7


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.
10. The Director (Pensions), Ministry of Defence, Government of
India, issued instructions dated 31.01.2001 regarding the
implementation of government decisions on the
recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission
regarding disability pension/war injury pension / special family
pension / liberalized family pension / dependent pension /
liberalized dependent family pension for the Armed Forces
Officers and Personnel below the rank retiring, invalidating or
dying in harness on or after 01.01.1996. Para 7.2 of the
aforesaid instructions provides that where an Armed Forces
personnel is invalidated out under the circumstances mentioned
in para 4.1, the extent of disability or functional incapacity shall
be determined for the purposes of computing the disability
element in the following manner: -

8



11. By a communication dated 20.07.2006 issued by Adjutant
General’s Branch, integrated headquarters of Ministry of
Defence (Army), removed the disability cap of 20% in respect of
invalidment due to disability attributable to Military Service
course after 01.01.1996. The Department of Ex-Servicemen
Welfare, Ministry of Welfare, Government of India, addressed a
letter dated 19.01.2010 to Chiefs of all the three services. The
said letter states that on the basis of the recommendations
made by the committee, it has been decided to extend the
benefit of broad banding of percentage of disability/war injury
as provided in para 7.2 of the instructions dated 31.01.2001 to
all the officers and Armed Forces personnel who were
invalidated out of service prior to 01.01.1996 and are in receipt
of disability/war injury pension as on 01.07.2009. However, it
was clarified that wherever the disability element/war injury
element of pension in pre 01.01.1996 cases were not allowed for
disability being accepted as less than 20% at the initial stage or
subsequent stage on reassessment of the disability, the same
will continue to be disallowed and such cases will not be
reopened.
9


12. However, the instructions dated 31.01.2001 denied the benefit
of broad banding of disability pension to ex-servicemen who
superannuated from the services with disabilities. The validity of
the aforesaid instructions insofar as it deprived the benefit of
broad banding of disability pension to ex-servicemen was
challenged before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by an order dated
04.08.2010 struck down the aforesaid instruction to the limited
extent and held that ex-servicemen who superannuated with
disabilities are also entitled to the benefit of broad banding of
disability pension.
13. The validity of the orders passed by the Tribunal was
challenged in batch of appeals. A three-Judge Bench of this
Court in Union of India and Others v. Ram Avtar (supra), by
an order dated 10.12.2014 dismissed more than 800 appeals
filed by the Union of India challenging grant of broad banding of
disability element by tribunals to Armed Forces Personnel other
than ‘invalidated out’ from service. This Court ruled that an
Armed Force Personnel retiring on completion of tenure with
disability aggravated by or attributable to Military Service is
eligible for broad banding of disability pension/element. This
Court directed all the Courts and Tribunals to take note of the
10


judgment and further directed Union of India to give effect to the
orders passed by this Court within six weeks.
14. 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.
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). 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.
15. Pension, as authoritatively settled by this Court, is neither a
bounty nor an ex gratia payment dependent upon the grace of
the State. It is a deferred portion of compensation for past
service and, upon fulfilment of the governing conditions,
matures into a vested and enforceable right. Pensionary
entitlements, therefore, partake the character of property, and
cannot be withheld, reduced, or extinguished except by
11


5
authority of law . 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. The disability pension is not a matter of
largesse, but a recognition of sacrifice made in service of the
nation.
16. 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. When a benefit is recognised by a policy and
affirmed by judicial pronouncement, its application cannot be
selective or uneven. 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.
It is pertinent to note that the Union of India itself had taken a
17.
conscious policy decision to pay arrears of disability pension to

5
D.S. Nakara v Union of India, 1983 AIR SC 130, State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar
Srivastava & Anr., AIR 2013 SC 3383, Vijay Kumar v. Central Bank of India & Ors., 2025 INSC 848
12


all eligible ex-servicemen from 01.01.1996 or 01.01.2006, as the
case may be. This position is clearly borne out from paragraph 2
of the letter dated 15.09.2014 issued by Deputy Secretary
(Pension), Government of India, to Chiefs of Army, Navy and Air
Force. The similar intent is also evident from paras 3 and 6 of
the letter dated 10.10.2018 issued by Director, Department of
Pension and Pensioner’s Welfare, Government of India, wherein
civilian Medical Officers were granted revised disability benefit
from 01.01.1996 or 01.01.2006.
18. The aforesaid communications reflect a conscious and
deliberate policy choice on the part of Union of India to confer
upon all eligible pensioners the benefit of arrears of disability
pension with effect from 01.01.1996 or 01.01.2006, as the case
may be. In view of decision of this Court in Ram Avtar (supra),
the Government of India, by an order dated 18.04.2016,
expressly conveyed its approval to the Chiefs of the Army, Navy
and Air Force for implementation of the directions issued by the
Courts and Tribunals granting the benefit of broad banding of
the disability element to Armed Forces Personnel who had
retired or were discharged on completion of engagement with
13


disability, attributable to or aggravated by military service, from
the date specified in the respective judicial orders.
19. The order dated 18.04.2016 was a conscious policy
determination taken with full financial concurrence. 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. To permit such a course,
would amount to acknowledging the right in principle while
denying its substantive content in effect. Any such deprivation
of accrued arrears which has become due to ex-servicemen in
view of judicial determination as well as policy decision taken by
the Union of India itself, would constitute deprivation of
property and would amount to infraction of Article 300A of the
Constitution of India.
6
This Court has, in a consistent line of decisions , recognised
20.
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. The same cannot be curtailed by restricting

6
K.J.S. Bhuttar v. Union of India & Anr., (supra); Davinder Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (supra);
Madan Prasad Sinha v. Union of India & Ors., (supra); Piyush Bahuguna (Order dated 25.03.2022
passed in Diary No.10713/2021) and Bijender Singh v. Union of India (supra)
14


the benefit to a period of three years preceding the filing of the
original application. In the absence of any compelling reason to
take a different view, we find no justification to depart from the
view consistently taken by this Court.
21. 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. The issue with regard to broad banding
of disability pension attained finality only on 10.12.2014.
Thereafter, Union of India in the order dated 18.04.2016
addressed to Chiefs of Army, Navy and Air Force acknowledged
in clear terms that arrears of disability pension were to flow
from 01.01.1996 without any curtailment. Therefore, in the facts
and circumstances of the case, the contention that the claims of
ex-servicemen were barred by limitation does not deserve
acceptance.
22. 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. Subsequently, a three-Judge
Bench of this Court in Ram Avtar (supra), decided the issue of
applicability of instruction dated 31.01.2001 and the aforesaid
15


decision is For, yet another reason, the decision in
in rem.
Tarsem Singh (supra) has no application to the case in hand as
ex-servicemen in the instant appeals are already in receipt of
disability pension and are only seeking re-computation of the
disability pension. The right to approach the Tribunal accrued to
ex-servicemen only on 10.12.2014 i.e., when the decision in
Ram Avtar (supra) was rendered by this Court. Therefore, the
bar contained in Section 22(1)(c) of the Act has no application to
the claims filed by the ex-servicemen before the Tribunal. In the
facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the original
applications filed by the ex-servicemen do not suffer from any
delay or laches disentitling them from claiming the relief of
arrears of disability pension. Thus, the objections founded on
the delay and limitation are without any merit.
(vi) CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the
23.
appeals filed by the Union of India. Accordingly, the appeals
filed by the Union of India are dismissed. The orders passed by
the Tribunal which have been impugned in Civil appeals filed
by the ex-servicemen i.e. in Civil Appeal Nos.8286-8287 of 2018,
Civil Appeal No.1555 of 2024, Civil Appeal @ Diary No.34570 of
2019, Civil Appeal No.3091 of 2024 and Civil Appeal No.1724 of
16


2023, 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 in the aforesaid
appeals 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. Accordingly, the aforesaid appeals are
allowed. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
24.


.….…….……………….………….……….J.
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]



.………………...…………….….……..….J.
[ALOK ARADHE]


NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 12, 2026.
17