Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Rakesh Dahiya, AOR Mr. Pankaj Kumar, AOR Dr. Harshvir Pratap Sharma, Sr. Adv. Mr. Tejas Patel, AOR Mr. A K Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Akul Krishnan, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Apurva, Adv. Mr. Naresh Kumar, AOR Mr. Simarpal Singh Sawhney, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Juyal, Adv. Mr. Sreekar Aechuri, Adv. Mr. Prateek K Chadha, AOR Mr. R Venkataramani, Attorney General for India Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G. Mr. Abhishek Jain, Adv. Ms. Sweksha, Adv. Mr. Kamal Digpal, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Chitvan Singhal, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mr. Kartikay Aggarwal, Adv. Ms. Ameyavikrama Thanvi, Adv. Mr. Jagdish Chandra, Adv. Mr. Madhav Sinhal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR Mr. V. Elanchezhiyan, AOR Mr. Balraj Ratee, Adv. Mr. Narinder Kumar Rana, Adv. Mr. Dinesh Verma, Adv. Ms. Goldy Goyal, AOR Mr. Sudhanshu S. Pandey, Adv. Mr. Gaichangpou Gangmei, AOR Mr. Arjun D. Singh, Adv. Mr. Roshan Kumar, Adv. Mr. Maitreya Mahaley, Adv. Mr. Yimyanger Longkumer, Adv. Mr. Kamei Bestman Kabui, Adv. Mr. J. Prasad, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Ms. Jagrati Singh, AOR Mr. A K Srivastava, Adv. Mr. C. Arvind, Adv. Ms. Pradhanti@bharathi, Adv. Ms. R. Archana, Adv. Mr. Rajpal, Adv. Mr. Surendar Kumar, Adv. Mr. R. S. Meena, Adv. Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, AOR Mr. G.jayendra Balaji, Adv. Mr. Jayanta Kumar Biswas, Adv. Ms. Vandana Khanorkar, Adv.

The provisions of law involved in this case primarily include the following:

1. The constitutional guarantee against deprivation of property, as enshrined in Article 300A of the Constitution of India, which provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law (!) .

2. The statutory framework governing pension and disability pension for armed forces personnel, including the relevant Pension Regulations for the Army, which recognize the entitlement of retiring or discharged personnel with disabilities attributable to or aggravated by military service to receive disability pension (!) .

3. The provisions of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, particularly Section 30, which provides the jurisdiction and authority of the Armed Forces Tribunal to adjudicate disputes related to pension and other service-related benefits (!) .

4. The instructions and policies issued by the government, including directives regarding the implementation of disability pension benefits and the extension of arrears from specified cut-off dates, which are grounded in administrative law principles and the statutory powers conferred upon the government (!) .

5. The relevant provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, which govern the period within which claims for arrears of pension can be filed, although the Court held that these limitations do not apply where rights have accrued and been judicially recognized (!) .

6. The principles of property law and legal entitlement, which establish that pension rights, once vested, are enforceable and cannot be arbitrarily restricted or extinguished except under lawful authority (!) .

These provisions collectively underpin the legal framework relating to the entitlement, protection, and enforcement of disability pension rights for ex-servicemen, and the Court’s interpretation of these laws forms the basis of the judgment.