Retired Navy Officer Gets Disability Pension Arrears From 2018; Delhi HC Removes Three-Year Cap After Finding He Filed Promptly

The petitioner, a former Indian Navy sailor who retired on 31 January 2018, was diagnosed with Primary Hypertension and assessed at 30% disability for life.

His claim for disability pension and subsequent appeals were rejected.

On 27 February 2023, the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) allowed his application, directing payment of disability pension, rounded off to 50%, but restricted arrears to three years before the OA was filed on 9 July 2021, without giving reasons for that restriction.

The petitioner sought review, arguing that he had filed the OA about a month after rejection of his second appeal on 7 June 2021.

The AFT dismissed the review, citing an 885-day delay and the petitioner’s receipt of payment under the original judgment.

The petitioner challenged both AFT orders under Article 226.

Under Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648, a pension claim may constitute a continuing wrong; where no third-party rights are affected, relief may be granted despite delay, although arrears are normally restricted to three years before the claim is brought if the claimant approached the court belatedly.

The three-year limitation on arrears therefore applies where the approach is belated, not where the claimant has acted promptly.

The AFT’s grant of disability pension was based on Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India, (2013) 7 SCC 316, including the presumption of service attribution where no pre-existing ailment is recorded.

The Court also considered whether an apparent error in the original judgment warranted review and held that receipt of the payment made under that judgment did not bar the petitioner from seeking the remaining amount due.

The petitioner filed his second appeal on 16 October 2020 and, after its rejection on 7 June 2021, filed the OA on 9 July 2021.

The Court found no delay in approaching the AFT and held that applying the three-year arrears restriction in these circumstances misapplied Tarsem Singh; the AFT had also provided no reason for imposing the restriction.

The petitioner’s review application identified this error with a chronology of dates.

The subsequent delay in seeking review and his receipt of the amount awarded under the original judgment did not, in the circumstances, prevent correction of the error, particularly as he had pursued execution and further proceedings to obtain payment.

The respondents were directed to pay disability-pension arrears from 31 January 2018, the petitioner’s retirement date, within three months; failing payment within that period, interest at 6% per annum would accrue until payment.