HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 21.03.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh, (in short, ‘the Tribunal’ ) in OA No. 753 of 2019, by which, the benefit of service pension has been granted in favour of respondent No. 1 w.e.f. 30.09.1977 and the arrears have been restricted from 14.08.2001.

2. The only argument which has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the arrears granted in favour of respondent no. 1 should be restricted for three years from filing of the case and in support of said contention, learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 998 of 2025 titled as ‘Rajumon T. M versus Union of India and others’, decided on 07.05.2025 and submits that as per the said judgment, the applicant/officer concerned will not be entitled to any arrears of invalid pension, except for the last three years.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the case file with his able assistance.

4. Qua the grievance raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that the benefit of arrears is to be restricted. It should be noted that the said 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. The relevant paragraphs No. 15 to 21 of the judgment in SGT Girish Kumar and others' case (supra) are 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 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 t