2026 INSC 149 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

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)

2

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)

3

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.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals, filed both by the Union of India and by Ex-

servicemen, under Section 30 of the Armed Forces Tribunal

Act, 2007 (‘Act’), arise out of conflicting decisions of the Armed

4

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 &

Others v. Ram Avtar

1

, 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

5

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.

5. The grievance of the Union of India in the appeals filed by it, is

confined only to the direction to make payment of arrears of

6

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

6. The learned Attorney General, appearing on behalf of the Union

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

decisions of this Court

2

.

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.

7

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

been placed on the decisions of this Court

3

and decisions of the

Tribunal

4

.

(iv) ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION

8. The solitary issue which arises for consideration is whether the

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).

8

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: -

Percentage of disability as

assessed by Invalidating

Medical Board

Percentage to be reckoned for

computing of disability element

Less than 50 50

Between 50 and 75 75

Between 75 and 100 100

9

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.

10

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

11

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

12

authority of law

5. 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.

17. It is pertinent to note that the Union of India itself had taken a

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

13

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

14

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.

20. This Court has, in a consistent line of decisions

6

, 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

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)

15

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

16

decision is in rem. For, yet another reason, the decision in

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

23. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the

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

17

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.

24. There shall be no order as to costs.

.….…….……………….………….……….J.

[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]

.………………...…………….….……..….J.

[ALOK ARADHE]

NEW DELHI;

FEBRUARY 12, 2026.