Pension is a deferred portion of compensation for past service and a vested right that cannot be curtailed or restricted to a three-year period by the state authorities on grounds of delay once entitlement is established.

JUDGMENT :

K. NATARAJAN. J.

This writ petition is filed by the widow of an Air Force personnel challenging the order passed by the Armed Force Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi (herein referred to as ‘AFT, Kochi’) in O.A.No.243 of 2023 for restricting the arrears of pension to three years prior to the filing of the Original Application before the AFT.

2. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Central Government counsel for the respondents.

3. The case of the petitioner is that her husband enrolled as a Corporal in the Indian Air Force on 31.05.1974 and was discharged from service on 31.05.1989. Subsequently, he was in receipt of service pension with effect from 01.06.1989. Later, he died on 13.11.1993. No children were born out of the said wedlock and the petitioner is the widow of the deceased Air Force pensioner. She was receiving the family pension with effect from 14.11.1993. Subsequently, after 1996, she became bedridden due to ill health resulting from an accident and was unable to move. She was under treatment for long time under various systems of medicine, including Allopathic and Ayurvedic treatments. During this period, the authorities discontinued her family pension. Subsequently, upon knowing that the Central Government intended to honor the widows of the Armed Forces personnel who secured the Gallantry awards such as Shaurya Chakra, she approached the respondents to enquire about the stoppage of her family pension. The respondents directed her to submit a non-remarriage certificate as well as life certificate. Despite compliance, the respondents did not choose to pass any orders on her request. Consequently, the petitioner was constrained to approach the AFT. After the respondent/Union of India entered appearance and filed their counter affidavit, the AFT disposed of the application, allowing the application filed by the petitioner in part by granting the family pension to the petitioner. However, the Tribunal restricted the arrears of pension to a period of three years prior to the filing of the Original Application. Being aggrieved by the said restriction of arrears, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that the AFT has rightly granted the family pension to the petitioner, but, committed error in restricting the arrears to three years prior to the filing of the Original Application. The learned counsel further submitted that when the petitioner approached the Defence Pension Disbursing Office (DPDO), the authorities did not object to her reinstatement request, but instead directed the petitioner to produce a non-remarriage certificate as per Ext.P5 on 23.12.2021. Subsequently, she has produced the non remarriage certificate. In spite of the same, the respondents have not passed the order for granting the family pension to the petitioner. Therefore, she approached the Tribunal. Such being the case, the question of inordinate delay of 28 years does not arise. The learned counsel further contended that the AFT has committed error in restricting the payment of arrears of pension which is against the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various decisions and therefore prayed that the petition be allowed and the respondents be directed to grant the entire arrears of pension from the date at which the pension was discontinued. In support of this contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.K. Mastan Bee v. General Manager, South Central Railway and another [2003 KHC 733], Shri M.L.Patil (Dead) Through LRs v. The State of Goa and Another [2022 Livelaw (SC) 537], Union of India through its Sec