Disability Pension Arrears Can’t Be Limited to Three Years | SC

Case Details: Union of India vs. SGT Girish Kumar - [2026] 183 taxmann.com 412 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Alok Aradhe & Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.
• Rakesh Dahiya, Pankaj Kumar, Tejas Patel, Naresh Kumar, Prateek K. Chadha, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Tejas Patel, AORs, Dr. Harshvir Pratap Sharma, Sr. Adv., A.K. Srivastava, Akul Krishnan, Ms Sakshi Apurva, Simarpal Singh Sawhney, Siddhant Juyal, Sreekar Aechuri, Abhishek Jain, Ms Sweksha, Kamal Digpal, Vaibhav Dwivedi, Chitvan Singhal, Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Raman Yadav, Kartikay Aggarwal, Ms Ameyavikrama Thanvi, Jagdish Chandra, Madhav Sinhal, Advs., R Venkataramani, Attorney General for India & Ms Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G. for the Appellant.
• Dr. N. Visakamurthy, V. Elanchezhiyan, Ms Goldy Goyal, Gaichangpou Gangmei, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Ms Jagrati Singh, Mrs Anjani Aiyagari, AORs, Balraj Ratee, Narinder Kumar Rana, Dinesh Verma, Sudhanshu S. Pandey, Arjun D. Singh, Roshan Kumar, Maitreya Mahaley, Yimyanger Longkumer, Kamei Bestman Kabui, J. Prasad, A.K. Srivastava, C. Arvind, Ms Pradhanti@bharathi, Ms R. Archana, Rajpal, Surendar Kumar, R.S. Meena, G. Jayendra Balaji, Jayanta Kumar Biswas & Ms Vandana Khanorkar, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the question before the Supreme Court was whether, after having taken a conscious policy decision that arrears of disability pension were payable from a specified cut off date, the State could subsequently contend that such arrears should be confined to a period of three years preceding the claim.

Supreme Court Held

The Court held that once the State itself had determined, by a conscious policy decision, that arrears were payable from 01.01.1996 or 01.01.2006, as the case may be, it was not open to it to resile from that position and restrict payment to three years prior to the filing of the Original Application before the Armed Forces Tribunal by invoking the Limitation Act, 1963 or Section 22 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.

It was further held that arrears of disability pension which had become due to ex-servicemen pursuant to judicial determination as well as the policy decision of the Union of India constituted accrued rights. Any deprivation of such accrued arrears would amount to deprivation of property and would infringe Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, in the absence of any compelling reason to take a different view, the Supreme Court held that there was no justification to depart from its consistent position that the right to receive disability pension is a valuable right. Once such pension is found due, the benefit must be granted from the date it became due and cannot be curtailed by restricting arrears to three years preceding the filing of the original application.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal in OA-1677-2016, dated 30-08-2017 (para 23) set aside
• Union of India v. Ram Avtar 2014 SCC Online SC 1761 (para 18)
• K.J.S. Buttar v. Union of India (2011) 11 SCC 429
• Davinder Singh v. Union of India [Civil Appeal No. 9946 of 2016, dated 20-9-2016]
• EX. SIGMN. MADAN PRASAD SINHA @ SANATAN BABA v. Union of India [2019] 4 taxmann.com 1892 (SC)
• Union of India v. Piyush Bahuguna [Diary No.10713 of 2021, dated 25-3-2022]
• Bijender Singh v. Union of India 2025 SCC Online SC 895 (para 20) followed
• Union of India v. Tarsem Singh [2008] 2008 taxmann.com 10982 (SC) (para 22) distinguished

List of Cases Referred to

• Union of India v. Ram Avtar 2014 SCC Online SC 1761 (para 3)
• Davinder Singh v. Union of India [Civil Appeal No. 9946 of 2016, dated 20-9-2016] (para 6)
• Asger Ibrahim Amin v. Life Insurance Corporation of India (2016) 13 SCC 797 (para 6)
• K.J.S. Buttar v. Union of India (2011) 11 SCC 429 (para 6)
• State of Madhya Pradesh v. Yogendra Shrivastava (2010) 12 SCC 538 (para 6)
• P. K. Kapur v. Union of India (2007) 9 SCC 425 (para 6)
• M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das [2019] 111 taxmann.com 191 (SC) (para 6)
• Union of India v. Tarsem Singh [2008] 2008 taxmann.com 10982 (SC) (para 6)
• Shiv Dass v. Union of India 2007 taxmann.com 1901 (SC) (para 6)
• M.R. Gupta v. Union of India [1996] 1995 taxmann.com 1574 (SC) (para 6)
• P. L. Shah v. Union of India (1989) 1 SCC 546 (para 6)
• Anand Swarup Singh v. State of Punjab (1972) 4 SCC 744 (para 6)
• Madhav Laxman Vaikunthe v. State of Mysore 1961 taxmann.com 93 (SC) (para 6)
• Union of India v. SGT Girish Kumar [CIVIL APPEAL Diary No (s). 21811 of 2018, dated 13-7-2018] (para 6)
• Bijender Singh v. Union of India 2025 SCC Online SC 895 (para 7)
• Union of India v. Reet MP Singh [Civil Appeal No.11311 of 2025, dated 1-9-2025] (para 7)
• Ex Sigman Dharam Singh v. Union of India [Civil Appeal No. 3882 of 2009] (para 7)
• EX. SIGMN. MADAN PRASAD SINHA @ SANATAN BABA v. Union of India [2019] 4 taxmann.com 1892 (SC) (para 7)
• Union of India v. Piyush Bahuguna [Diary No.10713 of 2021, dated 25-3-2022] (para 7)
• Harbans Lal v. Union of India [OA No. 1789 of 2018, dated 24-5-2018] (para 7)
• D.S. Nakara v Union of India [1983] 1982 taxmann.com 519 (SC) (para 15)
• State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava [2013] 8 taxmann.com 654 (SC) (para 15)
• Vijay Kumar v. Central Bank of India [2025] 176 taxmann.com 499 (SC) (para 15).