Union of India v. Sgt Girish Kumar 2026 INSC 149 - Disability Pension - Ex-Servicemen

"The 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"

Pension - Disability Pension -Ex‑servicemen- Pension is neither a bounty nor an ex gratia payment dependent upon the grace of the State. It is a deferred portion of compensation for past service and, upon fulfilment of the governing conditions, matures into a vested and enforceable right. Pensionary entitlements, therefore, partake the character of property, and cannot be withheld, reduced, or extinguished except by authority of law. This principle applies with full vigour to disability pension, which 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. The disability pension is not a matter of largesse, but a recognition of sacrifice made in service of the nation - The 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. The same cannot be curtailed by restricting the benefit to a period of three years preceding the filing of the original application. (Para 15-20)

Case Info

Basic Case Details


Case name and neutral citation:Union of India through its Secretary & Ors. v. Sgt Girish Kumar & Ors. etc., 2026 INSC 149


Coram:Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J. and Alok Aradhe, J.


Judgment date:12 February 2026 (New Delhi)


Case laws and citations referred

  1. Union of India & Others v. Ram Avtar, 2014 SCC OnLine SC 1761
  2. Shri Madhav Laxman Vaikunthe v. State of Mysore, AIR 1962 SC 8
  3. Anand Swarup Singh v. State of Punjab, (1972) 4 SCC 744
  4. P.L. Shah v. Union of India & Anr., (1989) 1 SCC 546
  5. M.R. Gupta v. Union of India & Ors., (1995) 5 SCC 628
  6. Shiv Dass v. Union of India & Ors., (2007) 9 SCC 274
  7. Union of India & Ors. v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648
  8. M. Siddiq (Ram Janmabhumi Temple case) v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors., (2020) 1 SCC 1
  9. P.K. Kapur v. Union of India & Ors., (2007) 9 SCC 425
  10. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Yogendra Shrivastava, (2010) 12 SCC 538
  11. K.J.S. Buttar v. Union of India & Anr., (2011) 11 SCC 429
  12. Asger Ibrahim Amin v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, (2016) 13 SCC 797
  13. Davinder Singh v. Union of India & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 9946 of 2016, order dated 20.09.2016
  14. Union of India v. SGT Girish Kumar, order dated 13.07.2018 in Civil Appeal Diary No.21811 of 2018
  15. Union of India & Ors. v. Reet M.P. Singh & Anr., Civil Appeal No.11311 of 2025, order dated 01.09.2025
  16. Ex Sigman Dharam Singh v. Union of India, Civil Appeal No.3882 of 2009
  17. Madan Prasad Sinha v. Union of India & Ors., (2019) 15 SCC 232
  18. Union of India & Ors. v. Piyush Bahuguna, order dated 25.03.2022 in Diary No.10713 of 2021
  19. Bijender Singh v. Union of India & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 895
  20. D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, 1983 AIR SC 130
  21. State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr., AIR 2013 SC 3383
  22. Vijay Kumar v. Central Bank of India & Ors., 2025 INSC 848

(Plus various Armed Forces Tribunal decisions: Ram Avtar v. Union of India (AFT, 04.08.2010); Piyush Bahuguna v. Union of India (AFT, 10.10.2018); Harbans Lal v. Union of India & Ors. (AFT, 24.05.2018).)


Statutes / laws and instruments referred

  • Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, particularly section 30 (appeals to Supreme Court) and section 22 (limitation).
  • Limitation Act, 1963 (general provisions on limitation for monetary claims).
  • Constitution of India, Article 300A (right to property).
  • Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 and 2008 (disability pension framework).
  • Government/administrative instruments:
    • Ministry of Defence instructions dated 31.01.2001 (broad banding of disability element).
    • Adjutant General’s Branch letter dated 20.07.2006 (removal of 20% cap post‑1996).
    • Department of Ex‑Servicemen Welfare letter dated 19.01.2010 (extension of broad banding to pre‑1996 invalided personnel).
    • Government of India letter dated 15.09.2014 (arrears policy w.e.f. 01.01.1996/01.01.2006).
    • Department of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare letter dated 10.10.2018 (civilian medical officers’ revised disability benefits).
    • Ministry of Defence order dated 18.04.2016 (implementation of Ram Avtar and broad banding for those discharged on completion of tenure).

Three‑sentence brief summary


This batch of appeals concerned whether ex‑servicemen, already found entitled to broad banding of disability pension under Ram Avtar, could have arrears restricted to only three years prior to filing before the Armed Forces Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that disability pension is a vested, recurring property right, that Ram Avtar is a judgment in rem, and that the Union’s own policy decisions and orders (including the 18.04.2016 order) acknowledged arrears from 01.01.1996/01.01.2006 without curtailment, so limitation or laches could not be used to cut down arrears in these cases. The Court therefore dismissed the Union’s appeals, set aside Tribunal orders limiting arrears to three years, and directed payment of full disability pension with broad banding from 01.01.1996 or 01.01.2006, as applicable, with 6% interest per annum.