RATTI RAM vs UNION OF INDIA

[2026:RJ-JD:26378-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24281/2025
Ratti Ram S/o Shri Devat Ram, aged about 79 years, Ex. Cpl,
Aged 79, R/o A-139, Lotus Green City, Sector-9, Kurukshetra,
Haryana.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Defense,
South Block, New Delhi.
2. The Chief of Air Staff, Air Headquarter, Vayu Bhawan, New
Delhi.
3. The Air Officer Commanding, Air Force Record Office,
Subroto Park, New Delhi-110010.
4. The Chief Controller of Defence Accounts, Draupadi Ghat,
Allahabad.(Up).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jog Singh Bhati
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Samit Shrimali for
Mr. Prem lata Ranga.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
J U D G M E N T
Reserved on : 18/05/2026
Pronounced on : 16/06/ 2026
Reportable
Per Hon’ble Dr. Justice Nupur Bhati:
1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, claiming
following relief(s):
(Uploaded on 19/06/2026 at 03:07:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/06/2026 at 12:03:22 AM)

(2 of 9)
[2026:RJ-JD:26378-DB] [CW-24281/2025]
“1. This writ petition may kindly be allowed with the
costs, and by way of writ, order and directions, the
impugned judgment dated 04.09.2023 (annex.1) passed in
Original Application No. 10/2014 (Ex. Cpl. Ratti Ram Vs
Union of India & Ors.) by the Learned Armed Forces
Tribunal, Jodhpur, may kindly- be modified to this effect
that the arrears of disability pension may be paid to the
petitioner from the date of stoppage of the same i.e.
19.08.1980 till the date of actual payment.
2. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which
the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be
passed in favour of the petitioner.”
2. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner,
an Ex-Corporal of the Indian Air Force, was enrolled in service on
22.01.1964 and was discharged on 31.01.1979. At the time of
discharge, the Release Medical Board assessed him to be suffering
from “Bronchial Asthma” attributable to and aggravated by
military service and assessed the disability at 30% for life.
Consequently, disability pension was sanctioned to the petitioner
for the period from 01.02.1979 to 18.08.1980. Thereafter, the
disability pension was discontinued with effect from 19.08.1980 on
the allegation that the petitioner did not appear before the Re-
survey/Re-assessment Medical Board. The petitioner contended
that no communication regarding appearance before the Medical
Board was ever served upon him and that he had continuously
pursued the matter through various representations. Ultimately,
the petitioner filed Original Application No.10/2014 before the
Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Jaipur, Circuit Bench at
Jodhpur, seeking restoration of disability pension from the date of
its discontinuance. During pendency of the proceedings, the
learned Tribunal, vide order dated 15.11.2018, directed
constitution of a Re-survey Medical Board (RSMB) for
reassessment of the petitioner’s disability. Pursuant thereto, the
(Uploaded on 19/06/2026 at 03:07:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/06/2026 at 12:03:22 AM)

(3 of 9)
[2026:RJ-JD:26378-DB] [CW-24281/2025]
Re-survey Medical Board was convened on 19.11.2019, wherein it
was opined that the petitioner continued to suffer from Bronchial
Asthma with 30% disability for life and that the said disability
remained constant from 19.08.1980 onwards. Thereafter, the
learned Armed Forces Tribunal, vide judgment dated 04.09.2023,
allowed the Original Application and directed grant of disability
pension to the petitioner at the rate of 30%, rounded off to 50%,
with effect from 19.11.2019 for life. However, arrears were
restricted only from 19.11.2019. Being aggrieved by the
restriction of arrears from 19.11.2019 instead of from the date of
discontinuance of disability pension i.e. 19.08.1980, the petitioner
has preferred the present writ petition seeking modification of the
impugned judgment to the aforesaid extent.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner was initially granted disability pension for Bronchial
Asthma assessed at 30% for two years from 01.02.1979 to
18.08.1980, thereby conclusively establishing that the disease
was attributable to and aggravated by Air Force service. The
subsequent discontinuance of disability pension with effect from
19.08.1980 was wholly arbitrary and without proper
communication to the petitioner. Learned counsel further
submitted that the petitioner was never informed regarding the
constitution of any Reassessment/Re-Survey Medical Board after
expiry of the initial period of disability pension. On the contrary,
the petitioner had continuously pursued the matter through
representations and correspondence for continuation/revision of
disability pension. Thus, the respondents cannot be permitted to
(Uploaded on 19/06/2026 at 03:07:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/06/2026 at 12:03:22 AM)

(4 of 9)
[2026:RJ-JD:26378-DB] [CW-24281/2025]
contend that the petitioner was unwilling to appear before the
Medical Board.
4. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents supported
the impugned order passed by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal
and submitted that the Tribunal has already granted substantial
relief to the petitioner by restoring the disability element of
pension with effect from 19.11.2019 along with rounding off
benefits, and therefore, no further interference by this Hon’ble
Court is called for in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It was
submitted that continuation of temporary disability pension under
the applicable service regulations is always subject to
reassessment by a competent Reassessment/Re-Survey Medical
Board, and in absence of such reassessment after 18.08.1980, the
petitioner cannot claim disability pension for the intervening
period as a matter of right. Learned counsel contended that the
petitioner was initially granted disability pension only for a limited
period from 01.02.1979 to 18.08.1980 and, therefore,
continuation thereof was dependent upon fresh medical
assessment in accordance with the Rules.
5. Learned counsel further submitted that the official records
maintained by the respondents reflected that the petitioner was
unwilling to appear before the Reassessment Medical Board and,
consequently, the disability pension came to be discontinued with
effect from 19.08.1980 and, therefore, in such circumstances, the
respondents cannot be faulted for discontinuing the disability
element of pension, particularly when the petitioner failed to
undergo the mandatory reassessment process contemplated under
the governing regulations.
(Uploaded on 19/06/2026 at 03:07:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/06/2026 at 12:03:22 AM)

(5 of 9)
[2026:RJ-JD:26378-DB] [CW-24281/2025]
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material available on record.
7. This Court is of the considered opinion that the learned
Tribunal, while rightly allowing the Original Application on merits,
fell into error in fixing the cut-off date for arrears as 19.11.2019.
The RSMB on 19.11.2019 itself has unequivocally recorded that
the disability of the petitioner was constant at 30% from
19.08.1980 onwards. The finding of the RSMB is retrospective in
nature and conclusively establishes that the petitioner was
suffering from the qualifying disability continuously since the date
his pension was stopped. Once the medical board has so recorded,
there remains no legal basis to deny arrears from the date of
actual stoppage.
8. This Court finds that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Union Of India Through Its Secretary vs Sgt Girish
Kumar And Ors, decided on 12.02.2026, reported in 2026
SCC OnLine SC 194 held that the right to receive disability
pension is a valuable right, and once found due, the benefit must
be given from the date it became due and cannot be curtailed by
restricting the benefit to three years preceding the filing of the
original application. The relevant paragraph has been reproduced
hereunder: -
“20. 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. The same cannot be
curtailed by restricting 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.”
(Uploaded on 19/06/2026 at 03:07:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/06/2026 at 12:03:22 AM)

(6 of 9)
[2026:RJ-JD:26378-DB] [CW-24281/2025]
The ratio of the said judgment applies with full force to the facts of
the present case. The petitioner's disability pension was unlawfully
stopped on 19.08.1980 and the RSMB has conclusively confirmed
that the disability was constant at 30% from that very date. In
light of the law laid down in Girish Kumar case (supra) , the
arrears of disability pension must therefore flow from 19.08.1980,
the date of unlawful stoppage, and the restriction of arrears to
19.11.2019 as fixed by the learned Tribunal is legally
unsustainable and contrary to the settled position of law.
9. It is an accepted position that gratuity and pension are not
bounties. An employee earns these benefits by dint of his long,
continuous, faithful and unblemished service. The Court finds that
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of D.S. Nakara v. Union of
India, decided on 17/12/1982, reported in (1983) 1 SCC
305, has held as under: -
“18. The approach of the respondents raises a vital and none
too easy of answer, question as to why pension is paid. And
why was it required to be liberalised? Is the employer, which
expression will include even the State, bound to pay pension?
Is there any obligation on the employer to provide for the
erstwhile employee even after the contract of employment has
come to an end and the employee has ceased to render
service?
19. What is a pension? What are the goals of pension? What
public interest or purpose, if any, it seeks to serve? If it does
seek to serve some public purpose, is it thwarted by such
artificial division of retirement pre and post a certain date? We
need seek answer to these and incidental questions so as to
render just justice between parties to this petition.
20. The antiquated notion of pension being a bounty, a
gratuitous payment depending upon the sweet will or grace of
the employer not claimable as a right and, therefore, no right
to pension can be enforced through court has been swept
under the carpet by the decision of the Constitution Bench in
Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar wherein this Court
authoritatively ruled that pension is a right and the payment
(Uploaded on 19/06/2026 at 03:07:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/06/2026 at 12:03:22 AM)

(7 of 9)
[2026:RJ-JD:26378-DB] [CW-24281/2025]
of it does not depend upon the discretion of the Government
but is governed by the rules and a government servant coming
within those rules is entitled to claim pension. It was further
held that the grant of pension does not depend upon anyone's
discretion. It is only for the purpose of quantifying the amount
having regard to service and other allied matters that it may
be necessary for the authority to pass an order to that effect
but the right to receive pension flows to the officer not because
of any such order but by virtue of the rules. This view was
reaffirmed in State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh.”
In the present case, the disability pension of the petitioner was
stopped on 19.08.1980 without any valid order, without any
communication to the petitioner, and without following any due
process of law whatsoever. The delay in assembling the RSMB was
entirely attributable to the respondents, the learned Tribunal had
directed the RSMB to be conducted within three months of
15.11.2018, yet the respondents took approximately one year to
comply. Therefore, any delay caused by the inaction of part of the
respondents cannot be held at the disadvantage of the petitioner.
10. This Court further takes note of the fact that the respondents
having weeded out the service and medical records of the
petitioner, which was a primary cause of the prolonged delay in
resolving his claim. The petitioner had proactively submitted
Annex.-A/2 as far back as 31.05.1990 seeking revision of his
disability pension, which demonstrates that he was never
indifferent to his entitlements. The respondents, having failed to
act on the same and having thereafter weeded out the records,
cannot be permitted to use the resulting delay as a shield against
the legitimate claims of the petitioner.
11. The material placed on record by the petitioner before the
learned Armed Forces Tribunal, particularly Annexures-4 and 7
appended with the Original Application, indicates that the
(Uploaded on 19/06/2026 at 03:07:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/06/2026 at 12:03:22 AM)

(8 of 9)
[2026:RJ-JD:26378-DB] [CW-24281/2025]
petitioner had expressed unwillingness to appear before the Re-
Survey Medical Board (RSMB) prior to the discontinuation of his
disability pension on 19.08.1980, whereafter his case was stated
to have been closed. However, no document has been placed on
record by the respondents to demonstrate that the petitioner was
ever informed about the constitution of the RSMB or was
communicated any specific date requiring his appearance before
the competent authority. There is also no material available on
record to establish that the petitioner remained absent despite
due intimation, on account of which the respondents proceeded to
close his case. Surprisingly, the learned Tribunal, without
assigning any cogent reason, fixed 19.11.2019 as the date for
resumption of disability pension. The impugned judgment is a
non-reasoned order which is conspicuously silent on this crucial
aspect and does not disclose any reasoning justifying the denial of
arrears for the intervening period despite the categorical
retrospective medical opinion of the RSMB. Furthermore, the
respondents have also utterly failed to establish that the petitioner
deliberately failed to appear before the RSMB or that the delay in
reconsideration of his disability pension was in any manner
attributable to the petitioner. It is also not disputed by the
respondents that the petitioner had submitted an application
dated 31.05.1990 (Annexure A/2), requesting revision/restoration
of his disability pension. Despite receipt of the said application,
the respondents failed to take any action thereupon or to consider
the petitioner’s claim in accordance with law.
12. The petitioner, an ex-serviceman now aged 79 years, has
been suffering from Bronchial Asthma since his days of active
(Uploaded on 19/06/2026 at 03:07:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/06/2026 at 12:03:22 AM)

(9 of 9)
[2026:RJ-JD:26378-DB] [CW-24281/2025]
service to the nation. He has been deprived of his rightful
disability pension for over four decades through no fault of his
own. The purpose of disability pension is to provide sustenance
and recognition to those who have suffered in the course of
serving the nation. Any interpretation that defeats this purpose
must be eschewed.
13. In view of the above, this writ petition succeeds. The
impugned judgment dated 04.09.2023 passed by the Armed
Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Jaipur, Circuit Bench at Jodhpur
in Original Application No. 10/2014 is hereby modified to the
following extent:
(i) The respondents are directed to pay arrears of disability
pension to the petitioner from 19.08.1980 (the date of stoppage
of disability pension) till the date of actual payment, at the rate of
30% disability element rounded up to 50% as already directed by
the learned Tribunal.
(ii) The arrears shall be computed and paid within a period of
four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order.
(iii) In the event of failure to comply within the stipulated period,
the outstanding arrears shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of this order till the date of actual payment.
14. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed in part. No
order as to costs.
(DR.NUPUR BHATI),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
16- /Devesh/ -
(Uploaded on 19/06/2026 at 03:07:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/06/2026 at 12:03:22 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)