Allowed¶29

Smt. Rajeshwari Devi v. Union of India, Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India Nw Delhi and 5 Others

Allahabad HC17 Apr 2026WRIA/3838/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special Family Pension; arrears from date it became due (w.e.f. 12.02.2000); three-year restriction modified; Armed Forces Tribunal Regional Bench Lucknow, Transferred Application No.10 of 2022, order dated 04.10.2023; death in service at IMTRAT Bhutan, brain tumour; Late Hav. Ramvir Singh; interest @ 6% per annum; Union of India vs. SGT Girish Kumar, Civil Appeal Nos.6820-6824 of 2018 (decided 12.02.2026); writ petition allowed; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench.

What did the court decide?

Special Family Pension from the date it became due (w.e.f. 12.02.2000) with interest @ 6% per annum on arrears till actual payment; AFT order dated 04.10.2023 modified accordingly; arrears to be computed and paid within three months of certified copy. ¶29

Smt. Rajeshwari Devi vs Union of India, Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India Nw Delhi and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to Special Family Pension with arrears from the date it became due (w.e.f. 12.02.2000), rather than restricted to three years preceding the filing of her Original Application, in view of the Supreme Court's decision in Civil Appeal Nos.6820-6824 of 2018.

¶29

Court's answer

The writ petition is allowed and the Armed Forces Tribunal order dated 04.10.2023 is modified to the extent that the petitioner is entitled to special family pension from the date it became due, i.e. w.e.f. 12.02.2000.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on the arrears of special family pension from 12.02.2000 till the date of its actual payment.

¶29

Key takeaways

The respondents are directed to compute and pay the arrears of special family pension w.e.f. 12.02.2000 with interest @ 6% per annum within three months from the date of production/service of the certified copy of the order.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), WRIT - A No. 3838 of 2026, decided April 17, 2026 (Alok Mathur and Amitabh Kumar Rai, JJ.) — Widow of Late Hav. Ramvir Singh, who died in harness on 11.02.2000 while posted with the Indian Military Training Team (IMTRAT), Bhutan (cause of death: brain tumour/intracranial space-occupying lesion), held entitled to Special Family Pension from the date it became due (w.e.f. 12.02.2000) together with interest @ 6% per annum on arrears till actual payment. The order dated 04.10.2023 of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow in Transferred Application No.10 of 2022, which restricted the pension to three years preceding the filing of the Original Application, was modified accordingly, following the Supreme Court's judgment dated 12.02.2026 in Union of India through its Secretary and Others vs. SGT Girish Kumar and Others, Civil Appeal Nos.6820-6824 of 2018 (paras 20-23), that such pensionary benefit, being a valuable right, has to be given from the date it became due. Respondents directed to compute and pay the arrears within three months of certified copy.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 3838 of 2026

Smt. Rajeshwari Devi

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Union Of India, Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Defence, Govt. Of India Nw Delhi And 5 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Veer Raghav Chaubey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I.

¶9

Court No. - 5

¶10

HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.

¶11

1. Shri Veer Raghav Chaubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Varun Pandey, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3 and 5.

¶12

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the husband of the petitioner, Late Hav. Ramvir Singh (Regimental No. 14253509), was enrolled in the Army on 17.12.1983 and died on 11.02.2000 during service while he was posted at the Indian Military Training Team (IMTRAT), Bhutan. The cause of death was reported to be a brain tumour (intracranial space-occupying lesion). The petitioner had filed an Original Application before Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi seeking grant of Special Family Pension w.e.f. the date of death of her husband along with arrears and the said Original Application has been partly allowed by means of order dated 04.10.2023 directing the respondents to make necessary calculations for grant of Special Family Pension, which would be restricted to three years preceding the date of filing of the Original Application before the AFT (PB), New Delhi.

¶13

3. It has been further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that this aspect of the matter with regard to payment of Special Family Pension was duly considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 6820–6824 of 2018, titled "Union of India through its Secretary and Others vs. SGT Girish Kumar and Others, etc.".

¶14

4. The issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.68206824 of 2018 (supra) was with regard to the grant of disability pension

¶15

WRIA No. 3838 of 2026

¶16

¶17

concerning the period for which the arrears of disability pension are payable, as in some cases the Tribunal directed payment of arrears of disability pension from specified cut-off dates, whereas, in others, it restricted such benefits to three years prior to the filing of the original application before the Tribunal. The Supreme Court, after considering the issue involved regarding entitlement to pension, has held that the benefit of disability pension, being a valuable right, has to be given from the date it became due. The relevant portion of paragraphs 20 to 23 of the judgment and order dated 12.02.2026 passed in Civil Appeal Nos.6820-6824 of 2018 (supra) are reproduced hereinbelow :-

¶18

"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 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.

¶19

21. The 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.

¶20

22. The 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

¶21

WRIA No. 3838 of 2026

¶22

¶23

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 are without any merit.

¶24

(vi) CONCLUSION

¶25

23. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the appeals filed by the Union of India. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Union of India are dismissed. The orders passed by the Tribunal which have been impugned in Civil appeals filed by the ex-servicemen i.e. in Civil Appeal Nos.8286-8287 of 2018, Civil Appeal No.1555 of 2024, Civil Appeal @ Diary No.34570 of 2019, Civil Appeal No.3091 of 2024 and Civil Appeal No.1724 of 2023, in so far as they restrict the benefit of arrears of disability pension to three years preceding the filing of original application are quashed and set aside. The appellants in the aforesaid appeals are held entitled to disability pension including the benefit of broad banding, due to them, with effect from 01.01.1996 or 01.01.2006, as

¶26

WRIA No. 3838 of 2026

¶27

¶28

the case may be, along with interest @ 6% per annum. Accordingly, the aforesaid appeals are allowed. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of."

¶29

5. In view of the above discussions, the writ petition stands allowed . The judgment and order dated 04.10.2023 passed by Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow in Transferred Application No.10 of 2022 is modified to the extent that the petitioner will be entitled to special family pension from the date it became due to the petitioner i.e. w.e.f. 12.02.2000. The petitioner will also be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on the arrears of special family pension from 12.02.2000 till the date of its actual payment. The respondents are directed to compute and pay the arrears of special family pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 12.02.2000 along with interest @ 6% per annum and pay the same to the petitioner within three months from the date of production/service of the certified copy of this order.

¶30

April 17, 2026 Mahesh

¶31

(Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Alok Mathur,J.)

¶32

Digitally signed by :- MAHESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Rajeshwari Devi v. Union of India, Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India Nw Delhi and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rajeshwari Devi v. Union of India, Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India Nw Delhi and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nurul Amin vs District Magistrate Balrampur and 2 Others

U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence New Delhi and 4 Others vs Ex Naik Raj Kumar Dubey

Smt. Geeta Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Sudhakar Chaurasiya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Mariya Khatoon vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Revenue Lko. and 6 Others

Becha vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. (Housing and Urban Planning) Lko. and 3 Others