The Supreme Court has ruled that the benefit of arrears of disability pension, specifically regarding “broad banding,” cannot be restricted to a period of three years preceding the filing of an application before the Armed Forces Tribunal. The Apex Court held that eligible ex-servicemen are entitled to arrears from the specified cut-off dates of January 1, 1996, or January 1, 2006, as applicable.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe dismissed the appeals filed by the Union of India and allowed the appeals filed by ex-servicemen, settling the conflict regarding the period for which arrears are payable.
Background of the Dispute
The controversy arose from conflicting decisions of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT). While some benches of the Tribunal directed payment of arrears of disability pension from specified cut-off dates (1996 or 2006), others restricted the benefits to three years prior to the filing of applications, invoking principles of limitation.
The core issue centered on the concept of “broad banding” of disability elements. Following the Fifth Central Pay Commission, the Government issued instructions on January 31, 2001, allowing for the computing of disability elements (e.g., disability less than 50% to be reckoned as 50%). Initially, this benefit was denied to personnel who superannuated (retired) with disabilities, as opposed to those “invalidated out.”
This distinction was removed by the Supreme Court in its three-Judge Bench decision in Union of India & Others v. Ram Avtar (2014), which held that personnel retiring on completion of tenure with disability aggravated by or attributable to military service are also eligible for broad banding. Following this, numerous claims were filed for arrears.
Arguments Before the Court
The Union of India, represented by the Attorney General, argued that the claims for arrears should be governed by the Limitation Act, 1963, and Section 22 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. The Union contended that even in cases of “continuing wrong,” arrears could not extend beyond the prescribed period of limitation, generally three years. Reliance was placed on the judgment in Union of India & Ors. v. Tarsem Singh (2008).
Conversely, the Ex-servicemen argued that the right to claim arrears crystallized only upon the pronouncement of the Ram Avtar judgment on December 10, 2014. They contended that Ram Avtar was a judgment in rem (applicable to all similarly situated persons) and that denial of full arrears amounted to a deprivation of vested property rights.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
1. Pension as a Property Right The Supreme Court reiterated that pension is not a bounty dependent on the grace of the State but a deferred portion of compensation for past service.
“Pensionary entitlements, therefore, partake the character of property, and cannot be withheld, reduced, or extinguished except by 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.”
2. Union of India as a Model Employer The Court observed that the Union of India had previously taken a conscious policy decision to pay arrears. The Bench noted the Government’s letter dated April 18, 2016, which conveyed approval for implementing broad banding benefits.
“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.”
3. Rejection of the Limitation Argument Addressing the Union’s reliance on the Tarsem Singh judgment, the Court found it inapplicable to the present facts. The Bench noted that the legal position regarding broad banding for superannuated soldiers remained uncertain until the Ram Avtar judgment in 2014.
The Court stated:
“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… 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.”
The Court further held that since the Government itself had determined by policy that arrears were payable from 01.01.1996 or 01.01.2006, it could not subsequently “resile” and contend that arrears ought to be confined to three years.
Decision
The Supreme Court passed the following directions:
- Union of India’s Appeals Dismissed: The Court found no merit in the appeals filed by the Union of India seeking to restrict arrears.
- Ex-Servicemen’s Appeals Allowed: The orders of the Tribunal restricting arrears to three years prior to the filing of the original application were quashed and set aside.
- Payment Directive: The appellants are held entitled to disability pension, including the benefit of broad banding, with effect from 01.01.1996 or 01.01.2006, as the case may be.
- Interest: The arrears shall carry an interest of 6% per annum.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Union of India Through Its Secretary & Ors. v. Sgt Girish Kumar and Ors. Etc.
- Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos. 6820-6824 of 2018 (and connected matters)
- Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
