Rajasthan HC Orders Disability Pension Arrears From 1980 for Ex-IAF Corporal, Overturns AFT's 2019 Cut-Off

A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court held that an ex-serviceman's disability pension arrears must run from 19 August 1980, when pension was unlawfully stopped, not from the 2019 medical board date fixed by the Armed Forces Tribunal.

A Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, comprising Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Dr. Justice Nupur Bhati, on 16 June 2026 modified a judgment of the Armed Forces Tribunal that had restored disability pension to ex-Corporal Ratti Ram only from 19 November 2019. The court held that a Re-survey Medical Board convened in 2019 had itself recorded that the petitioner's Bronchial Asthma disability was constant at 30% from 19 August 1980 onwards — the very date his pension was stopped. That retrospective medical finding, the bench held, left no legal basis to deny arrears for the intervening four decades. The respondents were directed to pay arrears from 19 August 1980 within four months, failing which interest at 6% per annum would apply.

The Petitioner and His Service History

Ratti Ram, now aged 79 years and resident of Kurukshetra, Haryana, enrolled in the Indian Air Force on 22 January 1964 and was discharged on 31 January 1979 at the rank of Corporal. At the time of discharge, the Release Medical Board assessed him as suffering from Bronchial Asthma attributable to and aggravated by military service, fixing the disability at 30% for life.

Disability pension was accordingly sanctioned for the period 1 February 1979 to 18 August 1980. It was then discontinued with effect from 19 August 1980 on the ground that the petitioner had not appeared before a Re-survey/Re-assessment Medical Board. The petitioner's consistent position was that no communication regarding the Medical Board was ever served on him, and that he had continuously pursued the matter through representations. He had, in fact, submitted an application as far back as 31 May 1990 seeking revision and restoration of his disability pension.

After decades of unresolved correspondence, the petitioner filed Original Application No. 10/2014 before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Jaipur, Circuit Bench at Jodhpur, seeking restoration of disability pension from the date of its discontinuance.

Proceedings Before the Armed Forces Tribunal

During the pendency of Original Application No. 10/2014, the Armed Forces Tribunal, by order dated 15 November 2018, directed the constitution of a Re-survey Medical Board (RSMB) for reassessment of the petitioner's disability. The Tribunal had directed the RSMB to be conducted within three months of that order. The respondents, however, took approximately one year to comply, and the RSMB was eventually convened on 19 November 2019.

The RSMB's findings were unambiguous: the petitioner continued to suffer from Bronchial Asthma with 30% disability for life, and that disability had remained constant from 19 August 1980 onwards. The medical opinion was, in terms, retrospective.

The Armed Forces Tribunal, by judgment dated 4 September 2023, allowed the Original Application and directed grant of disability pension at 30%, rounded off to 50%, with effect from 19 November 2019 for life. Arrears, however, were restricted to the period from 19 November 2019. The Tribunal did not assign any cogent reason for fixing that date as the cut-off, and the judgment was silent on why arrears for the period from 19 August 1980 to 18 November 2019 were being denied despite the RSMB's retrospective finding.

Aggrieved solely by the restriction of arrears to 19 November 2019, the petitioner filed D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24281/2025 before the Rajasthan High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking modification of the AFT judgment to direct arrears from 19 August 1980.

The Legal Contest Before the High Court

Mr. Jog Singh Bhati, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the Release Medical Board at the time of discharge had conclusively established that Bronchial Asthma was attributable to and aggravated by Air Force service. The discontinuance of pension from 19 August 1980 was wholly arbitrary because the petitioner was never informed of the constitution of any Reassessment Medical Board. The respondents could not, therefore, rely on an alleged unwillingness to appear before a board of whose existence the petitioner had no notice.

Mr. Samit Shrimali, appearing for the respondents, supported the AFT's judgment. He submitted that the Tribunal had already granted substantial relief by restoring the disability element with rounding-off benefits from 19 November 2019, and that no further interference in writ jurisdiction was warranted. He contended that continuation of temporary disability pension under the applicable service regulations was always subject to reassessment by a competent Medical Board, and that in the absence of such reassessment after 18 August 1980, the petitioner could not claim disability pension for the intervening period as a matter of right. The respondents' position was that official records reflected the petitioner's unwillingness to appear before the Reassessment Medical Board, and that the respondents could not be faulted for discontinuing pension in those circumstances.

How the Division Bench Reasoned

The judgment was authored by Dr. Justice Nupur Bhati. The bench identified the central error in the AFT's approach: the RSMB convened on 19 November 2019 had itself recorded that the petitioner's disability was constant at 30% from 19 August 1980 onwards. That finding was retrospective in nature. Once the medical board had so recorded, the bench held, there remained no legal basis to deny arrears from the date of actual stoppage.

The bench placed reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India Through Its Secretary v. Sgt Girish Kumar and Ors., decided on 12 February 2026 and reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 194. The Supreme Court had held in that case 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 Supreme Court had further held that the benefit cannot be curtailed by restricting it to three years preceding the filing of the original application. The Division Bench held that the ratio of Girish Kumar applied with full force to the facts before it.

The bench also drew on the Constitution Bench decision in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, reported in (1983) 1 SCC 305, which had swept away the notion of pension as a bounty and affirmed that pension is a right governed by rules, not by the discretion of the government.

On the respondents' contention that the petitioner had been unwilling to appear before the RSMB, the bench found the position unsustainable on the record. No document had been placed by the respondents to show that the petitioner was ever informed about the constitution of the RSMB or communicated any specific date for appearance. There was no material to establish that the petitioner remained absent despite due intimation. The bench observed that the respondents had also weeded out the service and medical records of the petitioner, which was itself a primary cause of the prolonged delay in resolving his claim.

The petitioner's application dated 31 May 1990 seeking revision of his disability pension was on record. Despite receiving that application, the respondents had failed to act on it or to consider the claim in accordance with law. The bench held that the respondents, having failed to act and having thereafter weeded out the records, could not use the resulting delay as a shield against the petitioner's legitimate claims.

The delay in assembling the RSMB was also attributed to the respondents. The Tribunal had directed the RSMB to be conducted within three months of 15 November 2018; the respondents took approximately one year. Any delay caused by the respondents' inaction, the bench held, could not be held to the petitioner's disadvantage.

The AFT's judgment was characterised as a non-reasoned order, conspicuously silent on why arrears for the intervening period were being denied despite the categorical retrospective medical opinion of the RSMB. The bench found the restriction of arrears to 19 November 2019 legally unsustainable and contrary to settled law.

Outcome

The writ petition was allowed in part. The judgment dated 4 September 2023 of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Jaipur, Circuit Bench at Jodhpur in Original Application No. 10/2014 was modified in the following terms:

• The respondents are directed to pay arrears of disability pension to the petitioner from 19 August 1980 — the date of stoppage — till the date of actual payment, at the rate of 30% disability element rounded up to 50%, as already directed by the Tribunal.
• The arrears shall be computed and paid within four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.
• In the event of failure to comply within that period, the outstanding arrears shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of the order till the date of actual payment.

No order as to costs was made.