Allahabad High Court
UNION OF INDIA AND 3 OTHERSversusSHRI VIRENDRA SINGH
- Decided
Holding
The Court clarified that only the arrears date was revised and the substantive pension benefit remains as ordered by the Tribunal, leading to the dismissal of the review petition.
Summary
The Union of India filed a review petition challenging the High Court’s modification of a Tribunal order granting a disability pension to Shri Virendra Singh. The petition was filed beyond the statutory 363‑day period, but the Court condoned the delay on the basis of the applicant’s affidavit. The petitioners argued that the Court’s alteration of the arrears date effectively changed the pension benefit, which was to be rounded off to 50% from 01‑01‑1996, and sought a further review. The Court held that only the date for calculating arrears was altered; the substantive pension entitlement remained as ordered by the Tribunal. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed and the parties were directed to implement the existing order within six weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether a review petition filed after the 363‑day limitation can be condoned.
- Whether the High Court’s modification of the arrears date alters the substantive disability pension benefit granted by the Tribunal.
- Interpretation of the Tribunal’s order regarding the effective date of the pension and the scope of the Court’s modification.
Subjects
- review petition
- condonation of delay
- statutory limitation
- disability pension
- tribunal order
- High Court modification
- arrears calculation
- interpretation of judgment
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 146 of 2026
Union of India and 3 others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Shri Virendra Singh
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shashi Prakash Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ashok Kumar Singh, Deepak Vuttsya
Chief Justice's Court
HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
1. The review petition is barred by 363 days.
2. For the reasons indicated in the application supported by affidavit, the
same is allowed. Delay in filing the review petition is condoned.
3. This review petition is in relation to order dated 03.04.2025 passed in
Writ-A No. 3243 of 2025 wherein this Court, while deciding the writ
petition filed by the respondent, had passed the following directions:-
"13. The order impugned dated 15.03.2023 passed by the Tribunal is
modified only to the extent that the arrears shall be restricted with effect
from three years preceding the date of filing of the writ petition before
this Court and the date of filing of the writ petition before this Court is
10.08.1990. Rest of the directions contained in the order dated 15.03.2023
are maintained."
4. Submissions have been made that the grant of benefit of broad binding
for personnel invalidated from service came into effect from 01.01.1996,
hence, granting benefit from any period prior to 01.01.1996 is an error
apparent on the face of record and, therefore, the order requires a review.
5. Counsel appearing for the respondent-petitioner made submissions that
the plea raised in this regard is without any basis inasmuch as this Court
only extended the period for grant of arrears from the date of filing of the
writ petition before this Court instead of the date of the Transferred
CMRAD No. 146 of 2026
2
Application before the Tribunal and rest of the directions have not been
altered and the petitioners are only required to comply accordingly.
6. We have considered the submissions made and have perused the
material available on record.
7. The Tribunal while deciding the Transferred Application No. 4 of
2019, ordered as under:-
"13. In view of the above, the Transferred Application No. 04 of 2019
deserves to be allowed, hence allowed for the grant of disability pension.
The impugned orders, rejecting the applicant's claim for grant of
disability pension, are set aside. The disability of the applicant is held as
aggravated by Army Service for life. The applicant is entitled to get
disability pension @ 30% for life from the next date of his invalidation
which would be rounded off to 50% for life with effect from 01.01.1996.
The respondents are directed to grant disability pension to the applicant
@ 30% for life from the next date of his invalidation which would stand
rounded off to 50% for life with effect from 01.01.1996. However, the
arrears shall be restricted w.e.f. three years preceding the date application
was received by this Tribunal by transfer. The date of receiving the
application by this Tribunal by transfer is 01.04.2019. The respondents
are further directed to give effect to this order within a period of four
months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Default
will invite interest @ 8% per annum till the actual payment."
(emphasis supplied)
8. The effective portion, which is subject matter of the present review
petition, provided that the 'respondent would be entitled to get disability
pension at the rate of 30% for life from the next date of his invalidation
which would be rounded off to 50% for life with effect from 01.01.1996'.
The Tribunal further went on to order that arrears shall be restricted with
effect from for three years preceding the date application was received by
the Tribunal by transfer and the date of receipt was indicated as
01.04.2019.
9. This Court, as quoted herein-before, had only altered the date from the
CMRAD No. 146 of 2026
3
date of transfer application to the date of the filing of the writ petition and
the order as passed by this Court would be read in that context only. The
rest of the relief which was granted to the respondent has not been altered
and, therefore, the apprehension of the petitioners that the order would be
construed that even when the disability pension has been ordered to be
rounded off to 50% with effect from 01.01.1996 would read as since
1987, cannot be countenanced.
10. However, we clarify the said aspect that in the order passed by the
Tribunal only the date for arrears has been revised and no other aspect as
ordered by the Tribunal has been revised by this Court.
11. With the above clarification, the review petition stands disposed of.
12. Though the order was passed by the Tribunal on 15.03.2023 and in the
writ petition the same was modified on 03.04.2025, it is submitted by the
counsel for the respondent that the order has not been implemented so far.
13. It would be required of the petitioners to ensure that the benefits
pursuant to the orders passed by the Tribunal, as modified by this Court,
are accorded to the respondent within a period of six weeks from the date
of this order.
(Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.)
May 14, 2026
RK/AKShukla
Digitally signed by :-
RAJESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…