Yash Paul v. Union of India Th. Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and Others

ORDER

19.05.2026

¶1Through the medium of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 23.01.2023 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Srinagar at Jammu in OA No. 223/2020 titled "Yash Paul Vs. Union of India & Ors.", whereby though the petitioner has been granted the benefit of rounding off of disability element from 20% to 50% for life, the same has been granted w.e.f. 01.01.2016 instead of from the date of his discharge from service i.e., 01.05.2003.

¶2The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army on 21.04.1979 and, upon completion of his tenure of service, was discharged on 30.04.2003 while being in "Low Medical Category'. The Release Medical Board assessed the disability of the petitioner at '20% for life' and the same was found "aggravated by military service'. Accordingly, the petitioner was granted disability element @ 20% for life w.e.f. 01.05.2003 vide PPO No. DE/013106/2003 dated 29.09.2003.

¶3The grievance of the petitioner is that though he was subsequently granted the benefit of rounding off of disability element from 20% to 50% w.e.f.

01.01.2016 in terms of Circular No. 596 dated 09.02.2018, yet the respondents denied him the said benefit from the date of discharge i.e. 01.05.2003.

¶4Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 223/2020 before the Armed Forces Tribunal seeking grant of benefit of rounding off of disability element from 20% to 50% from 01.05.2003. The Tribunal, while disposing of the Original Application vide order dated 23.01.2023, held that though the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of rounding off, however, considering the law of limitation and comparing the financial benefits available to the petitioner, directed grant of rounding off only w.e.f. 01.01.2016.

¶5The impugned judgment is assailed by the petitioner only on the ground that the learned Tribunal did not appreciate the fact that the issue regarding restriction of arrears on account of delay now stands settled and the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of rounding off from the date following the date of discharge i.e. 01.05.2003.

¶6Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶7In the present case, admittedly the petitioner was already in receipt of disability element, therefore, the issue is only with regard to whether an individual, who has retired on completion of terms of engagement and is suffering from disability attributable to or aggravated by military service, is entitled to the benefit of rounding off of disability element.

¶8The issue regarding grant of broad banding of disability element to the persons of Armed Forces other than those invalidated out from service

stands settled by the Hon"ble Apex Court in "Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ram Avtar", wherein it was held that armed forces personnel retiring on completion of tenure with disability aggravated or attributable to military service are eligible for broad banding of disability pension.

¶9The only issue, therefore, which survives for consideration is with regard to restriction of arrears on account of delay in approaching the Tribunal. The issue regarding consideration of restriction of benefit of disability pension already stands settled in terms of the judgment of the Hon"ble Apex Court in "Union of India v. Sgt. Girish Kumar & ors. etc.", 2026 INSC 149. The Hon"ble Apex Court, while considering the grievance of the Union of India regarding payment of arrears of disability pension, framed the issue for consideration as to whether the benefit of arrears of disability pension could be restricted to three years prior to the filing of the Original Application before the Tribunal. The Hon"ble Apex Court, while considering the same, held as under: "20. This Court has, in a consistent line of decisions, recognised that 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 K.J.S. Bhuttar v. Union of India & Anr., (supra); Davinder Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (supra); Madan Prasad Sinha v. Union of India & Ors., (supra); Piyush Bahuguna (Order dated 25.03.2022 passed in Diary No.10713/2021) and Bijender Singh v. Union of India (supra) 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, we find no

justification to depart from the view consistently taken by this Court.

¶21The contention advanced on behalf of the Union of India that the claim for arrears of disability pension is barred by Limitation Act, cannot be accepted. The issue with regard to broad banding of disability pension attained finality only on

10.12.2014. Thereafter, Union of India in the order dated

18.04.2016 addressed to Chiefs of Army, Navy and Air Force acknowledged in clear terms that arrears of disability pension were to flow from 01.01.1996 without any curtailment. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the contention that the claims of ex-servicemen were barred by limitation does not deserve acceptance.

¶22The reliance placed by the appellant on the decision of a two-Judge Bench of this Court in Tarsem Singh (supra) is of no assistance to it, as the legal landscape did not remain static after decision in Tarsem Singh. Subsequently, a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Ram Avtar (supra), decided the issue of applicability of instruction dated 31.01.2001 and the aforesaid decision is in rem. For, yet another reason, the decision in Tarsem Singh (supra) has no application to the case in hand as ex-servicemen in the instant appeals are already in receipt of disability pension and are only seeking re-computation of the disability pension. The right to approach the Tribunal accrued to ex-servicemen only on

10.12.2014 i.e., when the decision in Ram Avtar (supra) was rendered by this Court. Therefore, the bar contained in Section 22(1)(c) of the Act has no application to the claims filed by the ex-servicemen before the Tribunal. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the original applications filed by the ex-servicemen do not suffer from any delay or laches disentitling them from claiming the

relief of arrears of disability pension. Thus, the objections founded on the delay and limitation is without any merit."

¶10In view of the aforesaid settled position of law, the impugned order dated 23.01.2023 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal deserves to be modified to the extent that the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of rounding off of disability element from 20% to 50% w.e.f. 01.05.2003 for life. The arrears so becoming due shall carry simple interest @ 6% per annum till realization.

¶11Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of along with connected applications, if any. The respondents shall comply with the aforesaid directions within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is made available to them.

(Shahzad Azeem) (Sindhu Sharma) Judge

Judge

Jammu:

19.05.2026 Michal Sharma/PS

Sr. No. 66 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP(C) No. 1426/2026 Yash Paul …. Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through:- Mr. Amit Singh, Advocate. V/s Union of India and others …..Respondent(s) Through:- Mr. Vishal Sharma, Sr. Adv. (DSGI) with Mr. Eishaan Dadhichi & Karan Sharma, CGSC CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE