UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & ORS. versus SGT GIRISH KUMAR AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [2026] 2 S.C.R. 615 · Decided: 12-02-2026 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA

cites 13 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2026] 2 S.C.R. 615 : 2026 INSC 149
Union of India Through its Secretary & Ors. 
v. 
SGT Girish Kumar and Ors. Etc.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 6820-6824 of 2018)
12 February 2026
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose for consideration whether the benefit of arrears of 
disability pension can be restricted to three years prior to filing of 
the original applications before the tribunal.
Headnotes†
Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 – Disability pension – Claim 
for arrears of disability pension – Benefit of arrears of disability 
pension, if can be restricted to three years prior to filing of 
the original applications before the tribunal:
Held: Disability pension 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 – Disability pension is not a matter of largesse, but 
a recognition of sacrifice made in service of the nation – Right to 
receive disability pension is a valuable right and once found due, 
the benefit of the same has to be given from the date it became 
due – It cannot be curtailed by restricting the benefit to a period 
of three years preceding the filing of the original application – In 
the absence of any compelling reason to take a different view, no 
justification to depart from the view consistently taken by this Court – 
Order dated 18.04.2016 granting the benefit of broad banding of 
the disability element to Armed Forces Personnel who had retired 
or were discharged on completion of engagement with disability, 
attributable to or aggravated by military service, from the date 
specified in the respective judicial orders, was a conscious policy 
determination taken with full financial concurrence – Thus, where 
the State itself, by a conscious policy decision, has determined 
that arrears of disability pension are payable from a specified cut 
off date, it is not open to it to subsequently resile and contend 
* Author
616
[2026] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
that such arrears ought to be confined to a period of three years 
preceding the claim – To permit such a course, would amount to 
acknowledging the right in principle while denying its substantive 
content in effect – Any such deprivation of accrued arrears which 
has become due to ex-servicemen in view of judicial determination 
as well as policy decision taken by the Union of India itself, would 
constitute deprivation of property and would amount to infraction of 
Art.300A of the Constitution – 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 – On facts, the original applications filed 
by the ex-servicemen does not suffer from any delay or laches 
disentitling them from claiming the relief of arrears of disability 
pension, thus, the objections on the delay and limitation without 
any merit – Orders passed by the tribunal in so far as they restrict 
the benefit of arrears of disability pension to three years preceding 
the filing of original application quashed and set aside – Appellants 
entitled to disability pension including the benefit of broad banding, 
due to them, with effect from 01.01.1996 or 01.01.2006, as the 
case may be, along with interest @6% pa. [Paras 15-23]
Case Law Cited
Union of India & Others v. Ram Avtar, 2014 SCC OnLine SC 1761; 
Union of India & Ors. v. Tarsem Singh [2008] 12 SCR 104 : (2008) 
8 SCC 648 – held inapplicable.
Shri Madhav Laxman Vaikunthe v. State of Mysore [1962] 1 SCR 
886 : AIR 1962 SC 8; Anand Swarup Singh v. State of Punjab 
(1972) 4 SCC 744; P.L. Shah v. Union of India & Anr. [1989] 1 
SCR 224 : (1989) 1 SCC 546; M.R. Gupta v. Union of India & 
Ors. [1995] Supp. 2 SCR 852 : (1995) 5 SCC 628; Shiv Dass v. 
Union of India & Ors. [2007] 1 SCR 1127 : (2007) 9 SCC 274; M. 
Siddiq (Ram Janmabhumi Temple case) v. Mahant Suresh Das 
& Ors. [2019] 18 SCR 1 (2020) 1 SCC 1; P.K. Kapur v. Union 
of India & Ors. [2007] 2 SCR 128 : (2007) 9 SCC 425; State of 
Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Yogendra Shrivastava [2009] 14 SCR 
1137 : (2010) 12 SCC 538; K.J.S. Buttar v. Union of India & Anr. 
[2011] 4 SCR 136 : (2011) 11 SCC 429; Asger Ibrahim Amin v. 
Life Insurance Corporation o

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.