IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 13.03.2026 Balkar Singh ....Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI ----

Present: Mr. Ujwal Anand, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. H.S.Sandhu, Advocate for Mr. B.S.Khaira, Senior Panel Counsel for respondents – UOI.

****

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 03.12.2021 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.5 – Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal), by which, the arrears admissible to the petitioner have been restricted.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the restrictions of the arrears by the Tribunal is contrary to the judgment of 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 and Civil Appeal No. 6820-2824 of 2018 titled as “Union of India through its Secretary and others vs. SGT Girish Kumar and others etc.”, decided on 12.02.2026 and, therefore the restriction put upon the grant of arrears may kindly be modified so as to entitle the full arrears to the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for respondents-UOI submits that as there was a delay in raising the claim, the benefit of arrears has been restricted which is perfectly valid and legal.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file with their able assistance.

5. The issue with regard to the grant of arrears have already been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while passing order in Balbir Singh’s case (supra). The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is 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 amount.”

6. Recently again, the same issue has been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SGT Girish Kumar’s case (supra). The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is as under:-

“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