Union Of INDIA And Others vs. No 675439 B Ex GST Satvir Dalal And Another

Held

The High Court held that the Supreme Court judgments in Tarsem Singh and Shiv Dass, which generally restrict arrears to three years prior to the filing of the petition, are not applicable in this specific case. The Court reasoned that the respondent already had an indefeasible right vested in him due to the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India Vs. Ram Avtar (2014), which declared the benefit of rounding off disability pension. This indefeasible right, the Court found, created a continuous and recurring cause of action. Consequently, the bar of limitation and the vice of delay and laches would not impede the granting of the fullest relief. The Court also noted that the declaration in Ram Avtar was an expostulation of law in rem, entitling defence personnel to seek benefits without being hindered by delay. Therefore, the High Court found no merit in the writ petition, affirmed the impugned order of the Tribunal, and dismissed the petition.

Facts

The petitioner, Union of India, seeks to set aside an order dated 21.11.2023 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal. This order granted the respondent, Ex. GST Satvir Dalal, the benefit of rounding off his disability pension. The respondent, enrolled in the Indian Air Force in 1982 and discharged in 2014, was receiving a disability element of 50% for life from March 1, 2014. He sought the benefit of rounding off his disability pension to 75% from the date of his discharge. After a legal notice and a reply from the authorities, the respondent filed an application before the Tribunal, which allowed his claim for arrears by rounding off his disability pension to 75% from 50% with effect from March 1, 2014, for life, and directed payment within three months.

Key Issues

1. Whether the benefit of rounding off disability pension, as granted by the Armed Forces Tribunal, should be restricted to a period of three years prior to the filing of the application, in light of the principles laid down in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Tarsem Singh and Shiv Dass Vs. Union of India & Ors.? Petitioner's Arguments: The Union of India argued that the Supreme Court judgments in Tarsem Singh and Shiv Dass mandate that consequential relief for arrears should normally be restricted to three years prior to the date of filing the writ petition or application, especially when the claim involves payment or re-fixation of pension. They contended that the Tribunal erred in not applying this restriction. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent argued that the aforementioned Supreme Court judgments are not applicable because he was already receiving disability pension, and the issue was about rounding off an existing benefit, not a belated claim for a new one. He further contended that the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India Vs. Ram Avtar (2014) established an indefeasible right to the benefit of rounding off disability pension, creating a continuous and recurring cause of action, thereby negating the bar of limitation or delay and laches.