Pension is a deferred portion of compensation for past service and constitutes a vested property right; once the entitlement is established, it must be granted from the date it became due, without being subject to limitation restrictions that limit arrears to three years prior to filing.

JUDGMENT :

JOHNSON JOHN, J.

1. These writ petitions are filed, challenging the orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi, restricting the arrears of pension to three years prior to the filing of the Original Applications before the Tribunal.

2. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 36386 of 2023 joined the army service on 28.09.1977 and he was discharged from the army service on 30.6.1997. Subsequently, he re-enrolled on 31.3.2000 and was discharged from service on 31.5.2014. Aggrieved by the denial of second service pension, he preferred O.A. No. 221 of 2023 before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi. Though the Tribunal partly allowed the application as per order dated 29.11.2023 directing the respondents to grant the petitioner second service pension, he was allowed arrears of pension only for three years prior to the date of filing of the Original Application.

3. In W.P.(C) No. 6629 of 2024, the petitioner joined the army service on 05.06.1974 and after his discharge from army service on 31.10.1993, he was again enrolled on 11.9.1995 and was discharged from service on 30.11.2009. Aggrieved by the denial of second service pension, he filed O.A. No. 111 of 2023 before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi. Even though, as per the impugned order dated 23.8.2023, the Tribunal directed the respondents to grant the petitioner second service pension, arrears of pension was restricted to three years prior to the date of filing of the Original Application.

4. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 16423 of 2024 was enrolled under the army service on 17.01.1971 and was discharged on 31.8.1989. Thereafter, he re-enrolled on 25.06.1992 and was discharged from service on 31.5.2007. Aggrieved by the denial of second service pension, he filed O.A. No. 57 of 2023 before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi. Even though, as per the impugned order dated 24.11.2023, the Tribunal directed the respondents to grant second service pension to the petitioner, the arrears of pension was restricted to three years prior to the filing of the Original Application.

5. In W.P.(C) No. 30723 of 2024, the petitioner joined the Indian army on 19.4.1972 and was discharged on 28.2.1995. Thereafter, he was re-enrolled on 09.05.1995 and subsequently, discharged on 31.01.2010. Aggrieved by the denial of second service pension, he filed O.A. No. 70 of 2022 before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi. Even though the Tribunal granted second service pension to the petitioner, the arrears of pension was restricted to three years prior to the filing of the Original Application.

6. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in respective cases argued that the Armed Forces Tribunal has committed serious error in restricting the arrears of pension to three years prior to the filing of the Original Application and cited the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court in S.K. Mastan Bee v. General Manager, South Central Railway and another,  2003 KHC 733, M.L. Patil (Dead) Through LRs. v. The State of Goa and Another,  2022 Live Law (SC) 537, Union of India through its Secretary & Ors. v. SGT Girish Kumar and Ors.  2026 SCC OnLine SC 194 [C.A. Nos. 6820-6824 of 2018].

8. Per contra, the learned Central Government Counsel cited the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Tarsem Singh,  (2008) 8 SCC 648 and argued that insofar as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period is concerned, the principles relating to recurring/succ