Back
Cannot Restrict War Injury Pension Arrears:
In a significant ruling, a Division Bench of the has held that the cannot restrict arrears of war injury pension to a three-year period once the entitlement to such pension is established. The Court set aside an order of the that had limited the arrears, directing that the petitioner be paid full arrears from the date the right to pension first arose.
A Soldier's Sacrifice and a Widow's Fight
The case arose from a petition filed by Ranjit Kaur, the widow of a soldier who suffered a serious injury during the Indo-Pak war. The soldier sustained a shell wound to his left face, which resulted in "Hypermetropic Astigmatism Lt Eye." Although the injury was concededly attributable to military service, the benefit of war injury pension was not extended to him. It was only after a claim was made that the pension was granted, but the , Regional Bench, Chandigarh, by its order dated , restricted the arrears to a period of three years preceding the filing of the original application.
Challenging that restriction, the petitioner argued that the benefit of war injury pension was available even when the injury was suffered and should have been automatically extended by the State. Her counsel submitted that the arrears could not be restricted in light of settled precedents. The , while not disputing the factual position, contended that the claimant should have remained vigilant and sought the benefit earlier.
, Not a
The High Court observed that once the injury was concededly attributable to military service, the pension
"should have been extended by the
rather than, being claimed by the injured soldier or his family."
The Court framed the key question: whether the benefit of pension can be restricted when there is no
to claim pension, given that pension is a
.
Relying on the 's decisions in
Balbir Singh v.
() and
v. SGT Girish Kumar
(), the Bench held that arrears of pension cannot be arbitrarily truncated. In
SGT Girish Kumar
, the
had clarified that pension is
"neither a
nor an
"
but a "
" partaking the character of property under
. The apex court had also noted that the
itself had taken a policy decision to pay arrears from specified cut-off dates (
or
), and it was not open to the State to resile from that commitment by contending that arrears should be confined to three years.
"Deserves Appreciation and Recognition"
Making a poignant observation, the High Court remarked:
"The person who fought for the nation and suffered a shell injury on his face, resulting in damage to his eye, deserves appreciation and recognition rather than looking for the reasons to deny the claim."
It further noted that the , as a model employer, should have extended the benefit voluntarily. The Court extracted extensive passages from the
SGT Girish Kumar
judgment, emphasizing that the restriction of arrears to three years would
"amount to acknowledging the right in principle while denying its substantive content in effect."
Full Arrears from Date of Entitlement
Allowing the writ petition, the Court set aside the Tribunal's order limiting arrears to three years. It held that the petitioner is entitled to arrears of war injury pension from the date her husband became entitled to the grant thereof. The Court also dismissed any plea of limitation, noting that the issue of had attained finality only in .
The decision reinforces the principle that pensionary benefits, once due, must be paid in full and cannot be curtailed by arbitrary time limits. The High Court's order serves as a reminder to the State to honour the sacrifices of its soldiers without compelling them or their families to engage in prolonged litigation.
