Pension is a vested property right; arrears cannot be restricted to three years absent legal authority.

The respondent, Krishan Kant Sharma, was compulsorily retired from the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) on December 24, 1991, following disciplinary proceedings.

Despite his retirement, the DDA failed to release his retiral benefits (pension, GPF, and gratuity) for over three decades, citing untraceable files.

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), via order dated October 6, 2022, directed the DDA to process and grant all pensionary benefits within three months.

The DDA did not challenge this order but unilaterally restricted the payment of arrears to only three years prior to the order, purportedly relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh.

The respondent filed a contempt petition (CP 106/2023), leading the Tribunal to reiterate on April 21, 2025, that no such restriction existed in the original order.

The DDA subsequently challenged both the 2022 and 2025 orders in this writ petition.

1. Whether a departmental officer can unilaterally "read down" or restrict a clear judicial direction to pay all pensionary benefits by applying a three-year limitation on arrears.

2. Whether the rule in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh regarding the restriction of arrears to three years applies to the total withholding of primary pensionary benefits.

The Court primarily applied the principle that pension is a "vested and enforceable right" and partakes the character of "property" under the law, rather than being a bounty or grace of the State.

It relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Sgt Girish Kumar (2026), which clarified that Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (2008) cannot be used to curtail benefits that have been found due from the date they originally accrued, especially where the delay is not attributable to the claimant.

Under Article 226, the Court emphasized that administrative officers cannot sit in appeal over judicial orders or rewrite them based on their own interpretation of precedents.

The Court expressed "disquietude" and "unhappiness" that the DDA chose to rewrite the Tribunal’s order rather than challenging it through legal channels.

It held that the Tribunal's 2022 order was unconditional and unambiguously directed the processing of all benefits.

The Court distinguished Tarsem Singh, noting that it dealt with disability pension (a supplement to regular pension) where a 16-year delay in filing occurred.

Conversely, in the present case, the respondent was deprived of even a "farthing" of his basic sustenance since 1991.

Following Sgt Girish Kumar, the Court found that pensionary entitlements cannot be withheld or reduced except by authority of law, and the DDA's attempt to use the "three-year rule" as a shield against its own administrative failures (missing files) was legally unsustainable.

It held that the DDA's restriction of arrears was invalid and that the respondent is entitled to the full arrears from his date of retirement.

The Court directed the DDA to positively disburse all remaining retiral benefits within four weeks, failing which the amount will carry interest at 8% p.a. until actual payment.