Summary of this article
Pension is a vested right, not a state bounty, held the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The court removed the three-year restriction on war injury arrears payments in the case.
It held that the State should have proactively grant war injury pension instead of getting into litigation.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a recent judgment, gave relief to the family of a military veteran by removing the three-year restriction on war pension. A division bench comprising Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Amarinder Singh Grewal set aside an order of the Armed Forces Tribunal that restricted the war injury pension arrears of a 1971 war hero’s widows to just three years. The court held that a pension is not a state bounty or an ex gratia payment, but a vested right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. It’s a deferred compensation for past services and the sacrifice of a soldier for the nation.
Case Background
The petitioner is the widow of a soldier who suffered a shell injury on his face during the Indo-Pak war in 1971. According to a report by Live Law, the injury resulted in a permanent eye condition, “Hypermetropic Astigmatism Lt Eye”. While the injury was held attributable to the military services, the war injury pension was not extended to him during his lifetime. On the petitioner’s claim regarding the war pension, the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh, held her entitled to the pension in 2019, but restricted the arrears to a period of three years before the original application was filed. Opposing this three-year restriction, the petitioner appealed to the High Court.
Arguments
The counsel for the petitioner argued that the state should have been proactively granted the pension, as the facts of injury were undisputed. The counsel cited the Supreme Court precedents and contended that restricting arrears to three years was unjust, as a pension is a recurring cause of action.
On the other hand, the senior panel counsel, representing the Union of India, did not dispute the facts of the injury or entitlement but defended the three-year limit, arguing that the petitioner or her husband should have claimed the benefits previously.
Court Observation
The High Court, however, rejected the government’s defence. It was observed that when a soldier suffers a war injury fighting for India, the benefit should be proactively extended by the State rather than the beneficiary litigating for it. The court also noted that a pension is a vested right to property, and thus, accrued arrears cannot be cut down retrospectively once the entitlement is established.
Court Judgment
The court allowed the writ petition and set aside the three-year restriction. It held that the widow is entitled to full arrears of the war injury pension from the date her husband became entitled. The court also emphasised that a soldier who fought for the country deserves appreciation and recognition rather than facing administrative hurdles to receive his entitlements.
