Man Who Fought For Nation Deserves Appreciation: P&H High Court Says War Injury Pension Arrears Can't Be Restricted To Three Years
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside an order of the Armed Forces Tribunal restricting the arrears of war injury pension to three years preceding the filing of the original application, holding that once entitlement to the pension itself is not in dispute, the soldier or, as in this case, his widow is entitled to arrears from the date the entitlement first arose. [2026 LiveLaw...
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside an order of the Armed Forces Tribunal restricting the arrears of war injury pension to three years preceding the filing of the original application, holding that once entitlement to the pension itself is not in dispute, the soldier or, as in this case, his widow is entitled to arrears from the date the entitlement first arose. [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 297]
A Division Bench of Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Amarinder Singh Grewal said, held that "the person who fought for the nation and suffered a shell injury on his face, resulting in damage to his eye, deserves appreciation and recognition rather than looking for the reasons to deny the claim," and that "entitled benefits should have been extended by the Union of India to such a brave soldier."
The petitioner's husband suffered a shell wound to his left face while posted during the 1971 Indo-Pak war, resulting in "Hypermetropic Astigmatism, Left Eye." The injury was held attributable to military service, but the benefit of war injury pension was not extended to him despite the injury having been suffered during the war itself.
The benefit was eventually granted following a claim, but the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh, by order dated 21.08.2019 in MA Nos. 1737 & 1738 of 2019 and OA No. 1856 of 2017, restricted the arrears payable to a period of three years preceding the filing of the original application. That restriction was under challenge before the High Court.
The petitioner argued that the benefit of war injury pension was available even at the relevant time and ought to have been extended by the State without requiring a claim, especially since the underlying facts were never in dispute.
Counsel for the Union of India did not dispute the underlying factual position, but submitted that the petitioner or her husband ought to have remained vigilant and claimed the benefit earlier.
The Court noted that the entitlement itself was not in dispute, no petition had been filed against the Tribunal's finding that the petitioner was entitled to war injury pension and held that once a war injury sustained while fighting for the country in 1971 was concededly attributable to military service, the benefit "should have been extended... by the State-respondents rather than being claimed by the injured soldier or his family."
Framing the question as whether pension could be restricted at all "especially when there is no limitation period to claim the pension", pension being a recurring cause of action the Court held the law settled by Balbir Singh and SGT Girish Kumar required the restriction on arrears to be set aside.
Referring to SGT Girish Kumar case, decided earlier this year, the Court extracted extensive passages holding that pension "is neither a bounty nor an ex gratia payment" but a vested, enforceable right partaking the character of property under Article 300A, which cannot be withheld or reduced except by authority of law — a principle applying "with full vigour" to disability pension, recognising sacrifice rather than length of service.
The Court said having made that policy commitment, the Union could not "resile and contend that such arrears ought to be confined to a period of three years preceding the claim," since doing so would "amount to acknowledging the right in principle while denying its substantive content in effect."
The plea of limitation was also rejected, the issue of broad-banding of disability pension having attained finality only in December 2014.
In the light of the above, the Court held that the petitioner entitled to arrears of war injury pension from the date her husband first became entitled to it, and set aside the Tribunal's restriction limiting arrears to three years.
Case Title: Ranjit Kaur v. Union of India and others
Appearances: Mr. Ujwal Anand, Advocate, for the petitioner; Ms. Neha Jain, Senior Panel Counsel, for the respondents-Union of India.