Pensionary entitlements are a vested right and property under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, not a bounty; thus, arrears of disability pension cannot be restricted to three years if the State has a policy to grant them from a specific date.

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (ORAL)

In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 29.08.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent-Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’), by which the benefit of disability pension and benefit of rounding off of disability element of disability pension from 30% to 50% w.e.f 01.01.2012 has been granted to the respondent along with benefit of arrears.

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the benefit of arrears granted to respondent No.1, in pursuance to granting the benefit of rounding off disability pension from 30% to 50%, which has been granted to respondent No.1 for whole of the intervening period, is incorrect in view of the judgment in Shiv Dass vs. Union of India and ors. , (2007) 9 SCC 274, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has explicitly settled that where a claim is raised after a delay, Courts are to restrict the benefit of arrears to 03 years preceding the filing of the original application hence, the grant of disability pension by rounding off @ 50% along with arrears for whole of the intervening period, is incorrect.

Mr. G.S. Ghuman, Advocate has filed the power of attorney on behalf of respondent No.1, which is taken on record.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present case with their able assistance.

With regard to the grievance of petitioners qua grant of benefit of arrears for whole of the intervening period, as per the settled principle of law settled by 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, wherein also the question for consideration was regarding limiting the benefits of arrears admissible for a period of three years, wherein the benefit of arrears for the entire period, was being claimed by the claimant was granted to the claimant, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held 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 to 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.

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.”

Further, the 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 an