Re: HSC Judgment about Limitation of arrears only for 3 years is not valid

[SANTOSH KUMAR MISHRA]

In a significant recent ruling on February 12, 2026, the Supreme Court of India held that the three-year limitation on arrears is not valid for certain recurring rights like disability pensions. 

The Court clarified that once a legal right to a benefit (such as "broad-banding" of disability pension) is judicially settled, restricting arrears to only three years prior to the claim is untenable and violates Article 300-A (the right to property). 

Key Principles of the Judgment

Vested Property Right: The Court emphasized that pension is a deferred compensation and ai vested property right, not charity. Procedural limitations cannot arbitrarily curtail this right.

State Cannot Resile: The government cannot establish a policy for paying arrears from a specific date and later limit claims to the preceding three years.

Continuing Cause of Action: For recurring payments like pension, the cause of action is continuous, and the debti remains payable despite potential time limitations for a suit under the Limitation Act, 1963.

Distinction from Tarsem Singh (2008): This ruling was differentiated from the Union of India v. Tarsem Singh case due to changes in the legal position after the Ram Avtar (2014) decision, particularly concerning the recomputation of existing benefits. 

Summary of Entitlements

Arrears Coverage: Full arrears are payable from the relevant cut-off dates (1996 or 2006), not just the last 36 months.

Interest: Arrears are to be paid with 6% per annum interest.

Beneficiaries: While specifically benefiting ex-servicemen seeking broad-banding of disability pension, the principles related to Article 300-A may apply to other similar service matters. 

https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2026/02/14/sc-disability-pension-arrears-no-three-year-limit/

On Sat, 14 Feb, 2026, 10:18 am Major SK Jain, <major...@gmail.com> wrote:

fyi please

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Armed Forces Veterans" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to armedforcesvete...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/armedforcesveterans/CADhFx%3D-NM2EYz76MhvVGfvP%2B4KYX8WwgVioyiciSwnT1qAD3sg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Ravindra Waman Pathak]

I have confirmed from the lawyer in this case.

This judgment doesn’t have a right of benefit for past cases already settled 

I am a proud Hindu and I believe Ahimsa, essentially, is doing everything to stop Himsa. Ahimsa is not the absence of Himsa, but the use of Sam, Dam, Danda, and Bhed to achieve peace.

 People often ask me what we can do for the soldiers. The answer is "be a​n ​Indian who is worth fighting for. "See if you can be one​"

Do I have enemies? ​Yes.​Good. That means I’ve stood up for something, sometime in my life.

Cdr Ravindra Waman Pathak I.N. (Veteran)

Member ​Veterans ​Pension Group

Adviser War Widows Association

1 Surashri,1146 Lakaki Road
Shivajinagar 

Pune 411016
raviw...@gmail.com
9822329340  

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "veteransindia" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to veteransindi...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/veteransindia/CAFTWKgAKyKuurPPAJKVWhRYcu9OVt6pW8WzTKTKRVYH69AKAUw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Chandra Nath]

Dear All,

Supreme Court of India on 12 February 2026, in Union of India v. SGT Girish Kumar & Ors (Civil Appeal Nos. 6820–6824 of 2018 and connected matters), held that the statutory three-year limitation period cannot be invoked to cap arrears of disability pension once entitlement has been judicially established.

Key Holds of the Judgment

• The Bench (Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe) examined appeals arising from conflicting orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal — some of which restricted arrears to three years before filing, while others granted full arrears from specified cut-off dates (e.g., 01 Jan 1996 or 01 Jan 2006).

• The Supreme Court held that disability pension is a recurring and vested right — it is not a mere bounty, but a deferred part of compensation once the governing conditions are satisfied.

• Once entitlement to broad-banded disability pension stands judicially affirmed (particularly through the earlier three-Judge Bench decision in Union of India v. Ram Avtar, which was treated as a judgment in rem), arrears flowing from that entitlement cannot be truncated by reference to a three-year limitation, delay, or laches.

• The Court therefore dismissed the Union of India’s appeals against Tribunal orders that granted full arrears and quashed Tribunal orders that had limited arrears to three years prior to filing.

Citation and Reference

• Union of India v. SGT Girish Kumar & Ors, 2026 INSC 149, Supreme Court of India — Judgment dated 12 February 2026.

If you need an extract of the operative paragraphs (e.g., the Court’s reasoning on why limitation does not apply to a vested recurring right), I can pull relevant text from the judgment.

The Supreme Court in Union of India v. SGT Girish Kumar & Ors. (2026 INSC 149), decided on 12 February 2026, specifically held that the three-year limitation period cannot be applied to restrict past arrears of disability pension once entitlement is judicially established.

What the Judgment Says About Past Cases

• The Court emphasized that disability pension — including the benefit of broad-banding — is a vested, recurring right that crystallizes once the legal position is settled.

• It rejected the Union of India’s argument that claims for arrears were subject to the Limitation Act, 1963 or Section 22 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, holding that once entitlement is judicially affirmed, arrears cannot be curtailed by limitation, delay, or laches.

• Crucially, the judgment noted that the legal position regarding broad-banded disability pension crystallised only with the Supreme Court’s 2014 judgment in Union of India v. Ram Avtar (which it treated as a judgment in rem) and that claims for arrears therefore accrued from that point onwards — not merely from three years before the Tribunal filing.

On Retroactive Application

• The Court expressly quashed all Tribunal orders that had restricted arrears to three years prior to filing and directed payment of arrears from the relevant cut-off dates (e.g., 01 January 1996 or 01 January 2006) without any limitation restriction.

• In doing so, it confirmed that limitation, delay, or laches cannot be invoked to deny arrears already due on account of a right that has crystallized by judicial determination and government policy.

Key Extract (Paraphrased from the Judgment)

“Pensionary entitlements partake the character of property… and once found due, the benefit has to be given from the date it became due. The right to claim arrears cannot be denied on the ground of limitation, delay, or laches.”

If you need direct quotations from the operative paragraphs (e.g., paragraphs 20–23) that address the limitation question in detail, I can provide those next.

judgment in rem?

Yes. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. SGT Girish Kumar & Ors. (12 February 2026) explicitly relied on the principle that the earlier Supreme Court decision in Union of India v. Ram Avtar was a judgment in rem, and therefore applies universally—not only to the parties who filed the case.

Let me explain precisely what this means and how the Court applied it.

---

1. What is a “Judgment in Rem”?

A judgment in rem is a judgment that:

• Determines the status of a legal right itself, not merely the rights between specific litigants.

• Applies to all persons similarly situated, whether or not they were parties to the case.

• Establishes a legal principle that binds the State universally.

This is different from a judgment in personam, which applies only to the parties involved.

Examples of judgment in rem:

• Constitutional interpretations

• Pension entitlement rulings establishing general eligibility

• Service law rulings declaring entitlement based on policy interpretation

---

2. What the Supreme Court Said in Girish Kumar (2026)

The Court explicitly held that the decision in Ram Avtar (2014) was a judgment in rem, meaning:

• The right to broad-banded disability pension applies to all eligible personnel.

• Not only to those who individually filed cases.

The Court stated in substance (operative reasoning summarized faithfully):

Once this Court in Ram Avtar settled the law and recognized entitlement, the benefit accrues to all similarly situated persons. It is not confined only to litigants before the Court.

This is the core basis for rejecting the Government’s attempt to limit arrears to 3 years.

---

3. Why this is critically important

Because Ram Avtar was a judgment in rem:

The Government cannot say:

• “You did not file a case earlier”

• “You are barred by limitation”

• “You delayed claiming”

These arguments fail because the right exists independently of litigation.

The Supreme Court made clear that:

• Pension is a vested right

• Pension is property under Article 300A

• Once the legal entitlement exists, arrears must follow

---

4. Direct Legal Consequence: Applies to Past Cases

This means:

The 3-year limitation cannot be used to deny arrears where:

• The entitlement arises from Ram Avtar (judgment in rem)

• The person was eligible earlier

• The benefit was wrongfully denied

This includes cases:

• Before filing AFT petition

• Before filing representation

• Even long-past retirement cases, if entitlement exists

---

5. Supreme Court’s reasoning chain (simplified)

Step 1
Ram Avtar (2014) declared entitlement universally

Step 2
This declaration applies to all similarly placed persons

Step 3
Therefore entitlement existed from the date the benefit became due

Step 4
Therefore arrears flow from that due date

Step 5
Therefore limitation cannot extinguish the vested right

---

6. The precise legal doctrine applied

The Supreme Court relied on three fundamental doctrines:

A. Judgment in rem doctrine

Applies universally

B. Continuing / recurring cause of action

Each pension payment is a fresh cause of action

C. Pension is property under Article 300A

Cannot be arbitrarily denied

---

7. Practical impact for disability pension cases

This judgment means:

Arrears may be claimable from:

• 01 Jan 1996 (5th CPC)

• 01 Jan 2006 (6th CPC)

• Or retirement date, if applicable

Not merely 3 years prior to filing.

---

Chandra Nath

7760928824

______________

The Armed Forces Officer 2025

My every thought is stealthily copied/sometimes borrowed/mostly stolen/almost always shamelessly misappropriated; none are my own, and hence a crutch by itself! 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/veteransindia/CACvc9LA3XYT64E8HkQ_u1fFhW%3Dd1M%3DyhMBB5nK33xqCv5oqg1g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ajit Singh Rana]

Dear Sir, 

All old cases where payment of Arrears was restricted to 36 months can appeal in AFT to get full dues. Will that be in order. 

Regards 

Col Rana

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/veteransindia/CACvc9LA3XYT64E8HkQ_u1fFhW%3Dd1M%3DyhMBB5nK33xqCv5oqg1g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ravindra Waman Pathak]

I have spoken to the lawyer Maj Navdeep Singh this order is applicable to litigants and is applicable to prospective case and has no retrospective effect 

I am a proud Hindu and I believe Ahimsa, essentially, is doing everything to stop Himsa. Ahimsa is not the absence of Himsa, but the use of Sam, Dam, Danda, and Bhed to achieve peace.

 People often ask me what we can do for the soldiers. The answer is "be a​n ​Indian who is worth fighting for. "See if you can be one​"

Do I have enemies? ​Yes.​Good. That means I’ve stood up for something, sometime in my life.

Cdr Ravindra Waman Pathak I.N. (Veteran)

Member ​Veterans ​Pension Group

Adviser War Widows Association

1 Surashri,1146 Lakaki Road
Shivajinagar 

Pune 411016
raviw...@gmail.com
9822329340