High Court Sets Aside AFT Order on Pension Arrears
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside an order issued by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh, which had restricted the payment of war injury pension arrears to a period of three years preceding the filing of the original application. A Division Bench comprising Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Amarinder Singh Grewal held that once the entitlement to war injury pension is undisputed, the soldier or their family is entitled to receive arrears from the date the entitlement first arose.
Background of the Case
The case involved the widow of a soldier who sustained a shell wound to his left face during the 1971 Indo-Pak war, resulting in "Hypermetropic Astigmatism, Left Eye." This injury was officially deemed attributable to military service. Despite the injury occurring during wartime, the benefit of war injury pension was not initially extended to the soldier. The pension was eventually granted following a claim, but the Armed Forces Tribunal, in its order dated 21.08.2019, restricted the payable arrears to a three-year period before the original application was filed. This restriction formed the basis of the challenge before the High Court.
Arguments Presented
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the war injury pension benefit was available at the time the injury was sustained and should have been extended by the State without requiring a formal claim, particularly since the underlying facts were never in dispute. Conversely, counsel for the Union of India did not contest the factual background but contended that the petitioner or her husband should have exercised vigilance and claimed the benefit earlier.
High Court's Observations on Soldier's Entitlement
The High Court observed that the soldier, who fought for the nation and suffered a severe injury, deserved appreciation and recognition, rather than having reasons sought to deny his claim. The Bench stated that the entitled benefits should have been extended by the Union of India to such a brave soldier. The Court noted that the entitlement to war injury pension itself was not disputed, and no petition had been filed against the Tribunal's finding that the petitioner was indeed entitled to the pension. The High Court underscored that once a war injury sustained during the 1971 conflict was concededly attributable to military service, the benefit ought to have been extended by the State-respondents proactively, rather than requiring the injured soldier or his family to claim it.
Pension as a Vested Right and Rejection of Limitation Plea
Framing the central question as whether pension could be restricted, especially when no limitation period exists to claim pension, the High Court affirmed that pension constitutes a recurring cause of action. The Court referenced established legal precedents, including the cases of Balbir Singh and SGT Girish Kumar, which mandate that such restrictions on arrears must be set aside. Citing the SGT Girish Kumar case, the High Court reiterated that pension is neither a bounty nor an ex gratia payment, but rather a vested and enforceable right that partakes the character of property under Article 300A of the Constitution. This right, the Court emphasised, cannot be withheld or reduced except by authority of law. This principle applies with full vigour to disability pension, which recognises sacrifice rather than merely length of service.
The High Court further held that having made a policy commitment, the Union of India could not subsequently contend that such arrears should be confined to a three-year period preceding the claim. Doing so, the Court reasoned, would amount to acknowledging the right in principle while effectively denying its substantive content. The plea of limitation was also rejected, as the issue of broad-banding of disability pension had only attained finality in December 2014.
Final Disposition
In light of these observations, the Punjab and Haryana High Court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to arrears of war injury pension from the date her husband first became entitled to it. Consequently, the Tribunal's restriction limiting arrears to three years was set aside, ensuring the full payment of the entitled benefits.