Facts: The case involves a batch of appeals concerning the payment of arrears for the "broad banding" of disability pension to ex-servicemen. The primary respondent in the lead case was discharged from the Indian Air Force in 2008 with a 20% disability. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Ram Avtar (2014), which held that personnel retiring on completion of tenure are also eligible for broad banding benefits previously reserved for those "invalidated out", the respondent sought arrears. While the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) in some cases granted arrears from the date of discharge or specific policy cut-off dates (01.01.1996 or 01.01.2006), other benches restricted the arrears to only three years prior to the filing of the application, citing delay and limitation.
Procedural Posture: Both the Union of India and various ex-servicemen filed appeals under Section 30 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. The Union challenged the grant of arrears beyond three years, while the ex-servicemen challenged the restriction of arrears to a three-year period.
Issue: Whether the benefit of arrears of disability pension, specifically the broad banding element, can be restricted to three years prior to the filing of an application by invoking principles of limitation, delay, or laches, especially when the right was affirmed by a judgment in rem and government policy.
Holding: No, the arrears cannot be restricted to three years. The Court held that ex-servicemen are entitled to arrears from the policy-determined dates (01.01.1996 or 01.01.2006) with interest.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that pension is not a bounty but a vested right and a form of property under Article 300A of the Constitution. The 2014 Ram Avtar judgment was a "judgment in rem", meaning the Union, as a model employer, should have extended the benefit to all eligible personnel automatically rather than forcing them into litigation. Furthermore, the Union had issued policy communications in 2014 and 2016 acknowledging the right to arrears from 1996/2006. Once the State takes a conscious policy decision to pay from a specific date, it cannot later invoke the Limitation Act to curtail that benefit. The Court also noted that the right to approach the Tribunal for these re-computations effectively accrued only after the legal uncertainty was settled in 2014, making the bar under Section 22 of the AFT Act inapplicable.