[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India And Others vs Tirath Singh And Another on 13 March, 2026
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi, Vikas Suri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
113 CWP-7666-2026
Date of Decision: 13.03.2026
Union of India and others ....Petitioners
Versus
Tirath Singh and another
....Respondents
117 CWP-7671-2026
Union of India and others ....Petitioners
Versus
Ex Nk. Prithvi Raj and another
....Respondents
118 CWP-7682-2026
Union of India and others ....Petitioners
Versus
Ex Nk. Kamaljit Singh and another
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
----
Present: Mr. Rohit Verma, Advocate
for the petitioners in CWP-7666-2026 & CWP-7682-2026.
Dr. Anju Sharma, Advocate (through V.C.)
for the petitioners in CWP-7671-2026.
****
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)
1. All the petitions, the details of which are mentioned in the
1 of 10
CWP-7666-2026
CWP-7671-2026 and
CWP-7682-2026
heading, involve common point of law and common set of facts, hence, they
are being dealt together. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken
from CWP No.7666 of 2026.
2. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order
dated 12.07.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2 - Armed Forces
Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Tribunal), by which, respondent No.1 has been held entitled to benefit of
disability pension along with benefit of rounding off of disability pension
from 20% to 50% w.e.f. 01.01.1996 to 31.12.2015 on the ground that the same
is perverse.
3. The only argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is
that the Tribunal has wrongly granted the benefit of rounding off the disability
pension from 20% to 50% to respondent No.1 by placing reliance upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in K.J.S. Buttar vs. Union of
India, 2011 STPL (Web) 316 SC as well as Union of India and others vs.
Ram Avtar, 2014 SCC Online SC 1761, thus, the grant of benefit of disability
pension to respondent No.1 by rounding off 50% as against 20% is incorrect
and the facts of the present case have not been appreciated in correct
perspective by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order dated
12.07.2024 (Annexure P-1). He has further argued that benefit of arrears
granted to respondent No.1, in pursuance to granting the benefit of rounding
off disability pension from 20% to 50%, which has been granted to respondent
No.1 for whole of the intervening period, is incorrect in view of the judgment
in Shiv Dass vs. Union of India and others, (2007) 9 SCC 274, wherein the
2 of 10
CWP-7666-2026
CWP-7671-2026 and
CWP-7682-2026
Hon'ble Supreme Court has explicitly settled that where a claim is raised after
a delay, Courts are to restrict the benefit of arrears to 03 years preceding the
filing of the Original Application hence, the grant of disability pension by
rounding off @ 50% along with arrears for whole of the intervening period, is
incorrect.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone
through the case file with his able assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to rebut that
the respondent was already held entitled for the grant of disability pension and
was being paid the same keeping in view the fact that the disability of
"Hypertension" suffered by respondent No.1 was held to be attributable to the
military service, by the Medical Board. The only grievance raised by
respondent No.1 was that his disability of 20% is to be rounded off to 50%
keeping in view the settled principle of law as well as the instructions issued
on the said aspect.
6. It is a conceded position that as per the settled principle of law
settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ram Avtar's case (supra), any
officer serving in the Armed Forces, who had undergone the medical
examination at the time of his/her selection and was found fit, subsequently
upon suffering a disability, is entitled to the benefit of disability pension by
rounding off the same as the presumption would be that the disability suffered
is attributable to the Military service. Relevant paras of the judgment in Ram
Avtar's case (supra), are as under:-
"4. By the present set of appeals the
3 of 10
CWP-7666-2026
CWP-7671-2026 and
CWP-7682-2026
appellant(s) raise the question, whether or not, an
individual, who has retired on attaining the age of
superannuation or on completion of his tenure of
engagement, if found to be suffering from some
disability which is attributable to or aggravated by the
military service, is entitled to be granted the benefit of
rounding-off of disability pension. The appellant(s)
herein would contend that, on the basis of Circular No.
1(2)/97/D(Pen-C) issued by the Ministry of Defence,
Government of India, dated 31.01.2001, the aforesaid
benefit is made available only to an Armed Forces
Personnel who is invalidated out of service, and not to
any other category of Armed Forces Personnel
mentioned hereinabove.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the
parties to the lis.
6. We do not see any error in the impugned
judgment(s) and order(s) and therefore all the appeals
which pertain to the concept of rounding-off of the
disability pension are dismissed, with no order as to
costs.
7. The dismissal of these matters will be
taken note of by the High Courts as well as by the
Tribunals in granting appropriate relief to the
pensioners before them, if any, who are getting or are
entitled to the disability pension."
7. Further, in a recent judgment in Civil Appeal No.11311 of
2025 titled as Union of India and others vs. Reet MP Singh and another,
decided on 01.09.2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by placing
reliance upon Ram Avtar's case (supra), has again reiterated that the benefit
4 of 10
CWP-7666-2026
CWP-7671-2026 and
CWP-7682-2026
of rounding off the disability element cannot be denied.
8. With regard to the grievance of petitioners qua grant of benefit of
arrears for whole of the intervening period, as per the settled principle of law
settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.3086 of 2012
titled "Balbir Singh vs. Union of India and others", decided on 08.04.2016,
wherein also the question for consideration was regarding limiting the benefits of
arrears admissible for a period of three years, wherein the benefit of arrears for
the entire period, as was being claimed by the claimant was granted to the
claimant, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as under:
"XXX...The Tribunal was therefore justified in restoring
the service element of the pension in favour of the appellant. The
question however is whether the arrears could have been
restricted to three years only. The Tribunal in our view need not
have done so. That is because the appellant had a right to receive
service element of the pension in light of Regulation 186 (supra),
which right was valuable and ought to have been protected. The
fact that the appellant had approached the Tribunal for redress
belatedly was in the peculiar circumstances of the case no reason
for the Tribunal to reduce the payment of arrears to three years
only.
We accordingly allow this appeal and modify the order
passed by the Tribunal with the direction that the appellant shall
be paid service element of the pension with effect from the date
the said payment was stopped by the respondents. We however
grant to the respondents three months time to calculate and
release the arrears in favour of the appellant. In case the needful
is not done within the time stipulated, the arrears payable to the
appellant shall start earning interest at the rate of 9% from the
date the period of three months expires till actual payment of the
5 of 10
CWP-7666-2026
CWP-7671-2026 and
CWP-7682-2026
amount."
9. Further, the issue of grant of arrears to the army personnel, which
issue has been in dispute somewhat, has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in a recently passed judgment in Civil Appeal Nos. 6820-6824
of 2018 titled as Union of India through Secretary and others vs. SGT Girish
Kumar and others, decided on 12.02.2026, whereby the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India has held that pensionary entitlements partake the character of
property and same is neither a bounty nor ex-gratia payment and same cannot
be withheld, reduced or extinguished except by authority of law. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India has further held that UOI has taken a conscious policy
decision so as to grant benefit of arrears of disability pension to all eligible ex-
servicemen from 01.01.1996 or 01.01.2006 as the case may be, which is clear
from para 2 of letter dated 15.09.2014 issued by Deputy Secretary (Pension),
Government of India and by letter dated 10.10.2018 issued by Director,
Department of Pension and Pensioner's Welfare, wherein also same benefit
was granted to all eligible from 01.01.1996 or 01.01.2006, as the case may be.
10. Furthermore, in view of judgment passed in Ram Avtar's case
(supra) an order dated 18.04.2016 passed by Government of India also
approved for implementation of broad banding of disability element and
granting said benefit from date stipulated in judicial orders. In said order,
addressed to Chiefs of all forces, it has been clearly stipulated that arrears of
disability pension are to flow from 01.01.1996 without any curtailment as the
case may be. The relevant paragraphs No. 15 to 21 of the judgment in SGT
Girish Kumar's case (supra) are as under:-
6 of 10
CWP-7666-2026
CWP-7671-2026 and
CWP-7682-2026
"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 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.
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 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 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
7 of 10
CWP-7666-2026
CWP-7671-2026 and
CWP-7682-2026
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 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 exservicemen 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.
8 of 10
CWP-7666-2026
CWP-7671-2026 and
CWP-7682-2026
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 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) 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."
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to
dispute the said proposition of law having been settled by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in Ram Avtar's case (supra) and Reet MP Singh's
case (supra) to the effect that percentage of disability to be rounded off
and when applied in the present case disability of 20% to be rounded off to
50%.
9 of 10
CWP-7666-2026
CWP-7671-2026 and
CWP-7682-2026
12. Keeping in view the facts and circumstance of the present case
as well as the settled principle of law settled in Ram Avtar's case (supra),
Reet MP Singh's case (supra), Balbir Singh's case (supra) and SGT
Girish Kumar's case (supra) the respondent has rightly been held to be
entitled to disability pension by rounding off the disability element from
20% to 50% w.e.f. 01.01.1996 to 31.12.2015 along with arrears admissible.
13. No other argument has been raised.
14. Hence, in the absence of any perversity being pointed out in
the impugned orders in all the writ petitions either on the basis of the facts
or the settled principle of law, no ground is made out for any interference
by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
15. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed.
16. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
17. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case.
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
JUDGE
(VIKAS SURI)
March 13, 2026 JUDGE
Varinder
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
10 of 10
