The Supreme Court has ruled that arrears of disability pension broad-banding in the armed forces cannot be restricted to just three years before the claim is filed. This decision upholds the Armed Forces Tribunal's judgment, which stated that arrears must be paid from January 1, 1996, or the date of retirement, without limiting the claim to a three-year period before the application was filed. A two-judge bench, consisting of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, dismissed the Union of India's appeal against the Armed Forces Tribunal's Larger Bench decision. The Larger Bench had previously ruled that, under normal circumstances, arrears of disability pension broad-banding are payable from January 1, 1996, or the date of retirement or the grant of disability pension, whichever is later, without restricting the claim to three years before the proceedings. The tribunal also held that premature retirees or personnel prematurely discharged with disabilities or war injuries are entitled to broad-banding of disability pension from either January 1, 2006, or the date of their retirement. The Court allowed appeals filed by ex-servicemen against AFT orders that restricted arrears to three years before filing the claim. The Court's verdict states that the appeals filed by the Union of India lack merit, and the orders passed by the Tribunal that restrict the benefit of arrears of disability pension to three years before the original application are quashed and set aside. The appellants in these appeals are entitled to disability pension, including the benefit of broad-banding, from January 1, 1996, or January 1, 2006, as applicable, along with interest. The case before the Tribunal involved former Armed Forces personnel who had been granted disability pension. The issue was whether arrears of the enhanced disability element could be restricted to three years before filing the original application or whether they were payable from January 1, 1996, or the date of retirement or the grant of disability pension, whichever was later. The tribunal had previously granted the benefit of broad-banding but differed on the issue of arrears. One member held that arrears had to be granted from January 1, 1996, while the other member held that arrears should be confined to three years before filing. Due to this difference, the matter was referred to a Larger Bench. The Larger Bench examined the Ministry of Defence letter dated January 31, 2001, introducing broad-banding, and the subsequent litigation challenging the restriction limiting the benefit to personnel invalided out of service. It noted that the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh, had struck down the prohibitory stipulation in paragraph 8.2 of the January 31, 2001, letter in the case of Vijay Oberoi/Ram Avtar v. Union of India, and that the Supreme Court had dismissed the Union's appeal on December 10, 2014. The Tribunal also relied on various Supreme Court judgments where arrears of rounding off were directed to be paid from January 1, 1996, with interest. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's judgments in K.J.S. Buttar v. Union of India and Davinder Singh v. Union of India. In the latter case, the Supreme Court modified a Tribunal order that had limited arrears to three years and directed that arrears on account of rounding off be paid from January 1, 1996, with interest. The Larger Bench held that, in view of these decisions, there was no surviving controversy on the starting point of arrears. On the plea of limitation, the Larger Bench held that pension is a recurring cause of action and has been recognized as property under Article 300A of the Constitution. The Tribunal observed that once the issue had been settled by the Supreme Court, similarly placed pensioners were entitled to the same benefit without restriction on arrears. It concluded that there was no surviving controversy on arrears of broad-banding from January 1, 1996, and that no three-year cap could be imposed. The Larger Bench further emphasized that once the Supreme Court has settled the issue, the government is expected to implement the law uniformly. It stated that affected pensioners should not be forced to litigate individually, nor should arrears be curtailed merely because they approached the Tribunal later. Case no. – CA no. 6820-6824/2018 and connected cases Case Title – Union of India v. Sgt Girish Kumar and Ors.
