UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & ORS. v. SGT GIRISH KUMAR AND ORS.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 2026 INSC 1113

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 2026 (@ DIARY NO. 43523 OF 2026) IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6820 OF 2018

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & ORS. ... APPLICANTS

VERSUS

SGT GIRISH KUMAR AND ORS. ... RESPONDENTS

ORDER

1. Delay condoned.

2. This Miscellaneous Application is filed by the Union of India,

seeking clarification of the common judgment dated 12.02.2026

passed in C.A. Nos.6820-6824 of 2018 (Union of India Through

Its Secretary & Ors. v. SGT Girish Kumar & Ors.) (‘the common

judgment’) by which this Court dismissed the appeals preferred

by Union of India and allowed the appeals preferred by the ex-

servicemen. By the common judgment, ex-servicemen were held

entitled to disability pension, including the benefit of broad

banding w.e.f. 01.01.1996 or 01.01.2006, as the case may be,

along with interest at the rate of 6 % per annum. The objections

of the applicant founded on limitation, delay and laches were not Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by BORRA LM VALLI Date: 2026.10.12 16:43:11 IST

accepted. Reason:

3. Mrs. Archana Pathak Dave, learned Additional Solicitor General, 1

submitted that in the batch of appeals decided by this Court vide

common judgment, the entitlement of Ex-Servicemen to the

disability element of the pension was never in dispute. It was

contended that the ex-servicemen in the aforesaid batch of

appeals were already in receipt of disability pension and had

merely sought its re-computation by way of broad banding. It was

urged that the common judgment was rendered in the specific

factual context of the appeals before this Court and was not

intended to unsettle the principles governing stale or belated

pensionary claims.

4. Learned Additional Solicitor General had furnished particulars

of 23 cases pertaining to Air Force and 26 cases of Army which

either have been decided or are pending before the High Court or

the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) after the passing of the common

judgment. It was pointed out that in several cases, the final

orders passed earlier, which had restricted the benefit of arrears

and were complied with by the applicant, have been modified by

placing reliance on the common judgment. It was contended that

the common judgment is being relied upon in cases involving

pensionary claims of ex-servicemen which do not fall in the

category of appeals decided by this Court. It was urged that a

mechanical application of the common judgment would result in

administrative and financial implications and would unsettle the

matters which have attained finality. It was, therefore, prayed

that the common judgment be clarified and it be directed that the

common judgment should not be mechanically extended to all

pensionary claims where the entitlement of pension itself was in

dispute and was later settled by Courts/Tribunals.

5. Mr. M.V.R. Mukunda, learned counsel for the respondents, on

the other hand fairly submitted that in the common judgment,

arrears from specified dates were granted to ex-servicemen who

were already in receipt of disability pension and were seeking

only its re-computation. It was contended that the question of

delay cannot be examined in isolation from the conduct of Union

of India. By way of an illustration, it was demonstrated that in a

case decided by Allahabad High Court, the ex-serviceman retired

on 31.10.2011 and preferred the appeal claiming disability

pension on 30.11.2011. It was pointed out that the said appeal

was decided on 11.02.2017 that is after six years, and thus, the

original application filed before the Tribunal on 30.04.2018, was

well within time. It was further pointed out that the applicant

itself approached court belatedly and therefore cannot claim

equity on the ground of delay and laches.

6. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the

record.

7. It is well-settled in law that the observations made in a judgment

are not to be read as provisions of a statute, nor are they to be

read divorced from the context of the facts in which they were

made. A difference in facts may make a material difference to the

precedential value of a decision1.

8. In the light of aforesaid established legal principles, we only wish

to state that the common judgment dated 12.02.2026 passed in

Civil Appeal Nos. 6820-6824 of 2018 cannot be construed to

mean that on the basis of said judgment grant of disability

pension with arrears can be claimed in every case. Needless to

state that each claim shall be decided on its own merits.

9. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Application is disposed of.

….….…………………………………………J. [PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]

……………..…………………………………J. [ALOK ARADHE]

NEW DELHI; October 12, 2026

1State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra & Ors., AIR 1968 SC 647; and State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. v. Mohd. Arshad Khan & Anr., (2026) 6 SCC 383 4