Blog / Armed Forces & AFT

Rounding Off Disability Pension: Rights and Arrears

Armed Forces & AFT · By Adv. J. V. Bhosale · 10 November 2026

You retired on completion of your engagement with a disability the department itself accepted as service-connected. Your pension papers show the disability element at the assessed figure, say 30%, and a friend who retired earlier tells you he gets it at a higher, "rounded off" figure. You also hear that even when the Tribunal agrees, arrears are paid only for three years. For a large group of retirees, two Supreme Court decisions, one in 2014 and one in February 2026, address both points.

The short answer "Rounding off" (also called broad-banding) raises the assessed disability percentage to a higher band for the purpose of the disability element. In Union of India v. Ram Avtar (10 December 2014) the Supreme Court dismissed the Union's appeals on whether personnel who retired on superannuation or completion of tenure get it [1]. In Union of India v. Sgt Girish Kumar (12 February 2026) the Court held that arrears for this class cannot be cut down to three years and are payable from 01.01.1996 or 01.01.2006, as applicable, with 6% interest [2]. Rounding off depends on the disability first being accepted as attributable to or aggravated by service [1][2].

What the rule says

What rounding off is. The disability element is paid as a percentage of the assessed disability. Under broad-banding the assessed figure is lifted to a band figure. The Union's position in the Ram Avtar litigation was that a circular dated 31.01.2001 (No. 1(2)/97/D(Pen-C)) gave this benefit only to personnel who were invalided out, not to those who retired on superannuation or completion of tenure [1]. The exact band figures in that circular were not available to the research for this article, so none are quoted here.

The 2023 Rules. The Entitlement Rules 2023, in force from 21 September 2023, speak of "Impairment Relief" for retirees instead of "disability element", payable where impairment is assessed "not less than 20 per cent" (Rule 4(i)) [6]. Rule 13(b)(ii) gives an illustration: a total of 49.6% "will thus be Broad Banded to 50 per cent" for awarding Impairment Relief [6]. Broad-banding is expressly not applied to Capitalized Impairment Relief (Rule 4(m)), to retention cases (Rule 6(b)) or to the ex-gratia lump sum (Rule 4(p)) [6].

The forum. Pension is a "service matter" the Armed Forces Tribunal can decide on an application under section 14 [7]. The general guide is on our broad-banding and rounding off page.

What the courts have said

1. Union of India v. Ram Avtar, Civil Appeal 418/2012 and batch, Supreme Court (three Judges), order of 10 December 2014. The question was whether a person who retired on superannuation or completion of tenure with a disability attributable to or aggravated by service gets rounding off (para 4). The Court dismissed the Union's appeals: "We do not see any error in the impugned judgment(s)" (para 6). It directed that the dismissal "will be taken note of by the High Courts as well as by the Tribunals" (para 7) and allowed six weeks for compliance (para 8). Leave under section 31(1) of the Act was granted and delay condoned (paras 2-3) [1].

2. Union of India v. Sgt Girish Kumar, 2026 INSC 149, Supreme Court, 12 February 2026 (Narasimha and Aradhe JJ). The issue was whether arrears of broad-banded disability pension can be limited to three years before filing the application (para 8). The Court said no. Pension is "neither a bounty nor an ex gratia payment" (para 15). Ram Avtar was a judgment in rem, and the Union should have extended its benefit without forcing individual applications (para 16). The Union's own letters (15.09.2014, 10.10.2018 and an order of 18.04.2016) had decided to pay arrears from 01.01.1996 or 01.01.2006, so it could not go back on them (paras 17-19, citing Article 300A at para 19). On limitation, the Court held that the issue attained finality only on 10.12.2014 and that the right to approach the Tribunal accrued to these ex-servicemen on that date; the section 22(1)(c) bar therefore did not apply (paras 21-22). Tarsem Singh was "of no assistance" because the law "did not remain static" and because the soldiers already receive disability pension and seek only re-computation (para 22). Relief: disability pension with broad-banding from 01.01.1996 or 01.01.2006 as applicable, with 6% interest, and Tribunal orders restricting arrears to three years were quashed (para 23). The Court also noted that the AFT Full Bench on 01.12.2017 had held disability pension to be a recurring right (para 4) [2].

3. Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, SLP(C) 3820-3821/2008, Supreme Court, 13 August 2008. This is the case on which the three-year argument rests. It says belated service claims are normally refused, but that if the issue "relates to payment or re-fixation of pay or pension", relief may be granted despite delay, with consequential arrears normally limited to three years before filing the writ petition (para 5). It was a writ case, and it speaks of Administrative Tribunals generally, not the AFT specifically (paras 5-6) [5].

4. Sukhvinder Singh v. Union of India, CA 5605/2010, Supreme Court, 25 June 2014, and Bijender Singh v. Union of India, 2025 INSC 549, 23 April 2025. For a person who is invalided out, the Court said a disability leading to invaliding out attracts fifty per cent disability pension and must be assumed to be above 20% (Sukhvinder para 9; Bijender para 46) [3][4].

Who gets what

A worked example (hypothetical)

An invented illustration, not a real case. Naik S retired in 2010 on completion of his engagement. The Board accepted his disability as aggravated by service and assessed it at 30%. The PPO pays at 30%. In 2018 he filed an application. The Tribunal allowed rounding off but restricted arrears to three years before the date of filing.

On the sources above, the points that matter are: S retired on completion of tenure, so he falls within the question decided in Ram Avtar [1]. If the case belongs to the group Girish Kumar dealt with, the Court quashed three-year restrictions and ordered arrears from 01.01.1996 or 01.01.2006, as applicable [2]. Whether S's own facts, including his retirement date, fit that group depends on his papers and the Union's letters, which the Court relied on heavily [2]. This example does not say what any Bench would decide.

Step by step: what to do

1. Check the basics. Did you retire or get discharged on completion of tenure or superannuation, with a disability accepted as attributable or aggravated, and is it being paid at the actual percentage? That is the situation in Ram Avtar (para 4) [1].
2. Write to the pension authority. A representation asking for the Ram Avtar benefit is the departmental step, since the Act generally expects remedies to be used first [7].
3. File the Original Application under section 14 in Form I, with the documents and the fee prescribed, at the proper Bench [8].
4. Ask for the right relief: broad-banding, arrears from 01.01.1996 or 01.01.2006 as applicable to your case, and 6% interest. This is the kind of relief granted in Girish Kumar (para 23) [2].
5. Think about limitation. For this class, Girish Kumar says the right accrued on 10.12.2014 and the applications did not suffer from delay (para 22) [2]. Do not assume the same answer for every fact pattern; for ordinary delayed claims Tarsem Singh, which Girish Kumar distinguished but did not overrule, still has to be reckoned with [2][5].

Common mistakes

• Thinking rounding off is automatic. It needs the disability to be accepted first; a NANA finding has to be dealt with separately [2].
• Claiming arrears from the wrong date instead of 01.01.1996 or 01.01.2006, as applicable [2].
• Mixing up the old "disability element" with "Impairment Relief" under the 2023 Rules, which has its own illustration and its own exclusions [6].
• Treating rounding off as "adding 1%". It works by bands: the 2023 illustration lifts 49.6% to 50%. Cases with assessments of 15-19% turn on different questions of invalidment and assessment [6].

What is still unsettled

• Whether the Girish Kumar arrears holding is limited to the Ram Avtar group, since paragraphs 17-22 lean on the Union's own letters [2].
• What happens to pensioners who seek broad-banding on other fact patterns, long after 2014; para 22 relies on the right accruing in December 2014 [2].
• How rounding off works under the 2023 "Impairment Relief", where an assessment below 20% earns nothing under Rule 4(i) [6].
• Whether the Union has in fact extended Ram Avtar to non-litigants, as para 16 says it should [2].
• Whether Ram Avtar applies in the same way to Navy and Air Force pension rules; Girish Kumar itself was an Air Force case, and the Navy was not examined in the research.

Every case turns on its own facts, dates and records. You can read more on the Armed Forces Tribunal hub or ask Lex Buddy on this site.

Disclaimer: This article is for general education only and is not legal advice or an opinion on any individual case.

Frequently asked questions

What is rounding off or broad-banding of disability pension?

It lifts the assessed disability percentage to a higher band when working out the disability element. The Union argued in Ram Avtar that a circular of 31.01.2001 gave it only to invalided-out personnel; the Supreme Court dismissed its appeals on whether those who retired on completion of tenure also get it [1]. The 2023 Rules illustrate it with 49.6% being broad-banded to 50% [6].

I retired on completing my tenure. Am I covered?

Ram Avtar dealt with persons who retired on superannuation or completion of tenure with a disability attributable to or aggravated by service [1]. Your own facts, especially whether the disability was accepted, decide the position [2].

Can arrears be limited to three years before I filed?

For the class in Girish Kumar, no. The Supreme Court quashed such restrictions and held arrears payable from 01.01.1996 or 01.01.2006, as applicable, with 6% interest [2]. Girish Kumar distinguished Tarsem Singh for that class without overruling it, so for other delayed pension claims Tarsem's three-year approach still has to be reckoned with [2][5].

Why does the Supreme Court say there was no delay in those cases?

The Court held that the question attained finality only on 10.12.2014 and the right to approach the Tribunal accrued to these ex-servicemen on that date, so section 22(1)(c) was not attracted [2].

My Board assessed me at 15-19% and said invalided out. What then?

The Supreme Court has said that a disability leading to invaliding out must be assumed to be above 20% and attracts 50% disability pension [3][4]. See our article on invalided-out and low medical category cases.

Does rounding off apply if the Board wrote NANA?

Rounding off presupposes accepted entitlement, so a NANA finding has to be addressed first [2]. See our article on NANA rejections.

Does the position change under the 2023 Rules?

The 2023 Rules, in force from 21 September 2023, use the term Impairment Relief, require an assessment of not less than 20%, and contain their own broad-banding illustration and exclusions [6]. No judgment on how they operate was located for this article.

Related reading

• Armed Forces Tribunal: sourced guides (hub)
• Broad-banding and rounding off
• Disability pension before the AFT
• Limitation and condonation of delay
• How to file an Original Application

Sources

1. Union of India v. Ram Avtar — Civil Appeal 418/2012 and batch, Supreme Court (three Judges), order dated 10 Dec 2014 (paras 2-4, 6-8) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/71261620/
2. Union of India v. Sgt Girish Kumar and Ors. — 2026 INSC 149, Supreme Court, 12 Feb 2026, CA 6820-6824/2018 and batch (paras 4, 8, 13, 15-23) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/111293124/
3. Sukhvinder Singh v. Union of India — CA 5605/2010, Supreme Court, 25 Jun 2014 (para 9) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/91060800/
4. Bijender Singh v. Union of India — 2025 INSC 549, Supreme Court, 23 Apr 2025 (para 46) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/81878404/
5. Union of India v. Tarsem Singh — (2008) 8 SCC 648, Supreme Court, 13 Aug 2008 (appeals arising out of SLP(C) 3820-3821/2008) (paras 5-6) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/26187086/
6. Entitlement Rules 2023 (Ministry of Defence) — MoD letter F.No. 16(3)/2023/D(Pen/Pol)/Vol-II, 21.09.2023 (r. 4(i), 4(m), 4(p) PDF pp 4-5; r. 6(b) p.6; r. 13(b)(ii) p.12) https://desw.gov.in/sites/default/files/Entitlement%20Rules%202023.pdf
7. Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 — Act 55 of 2007 (ss. 3(o)(i), 14, 21, 22) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/50690063/
8. Armed Forces Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2008 — Rules 4, 7, 9 (rr. 4, 7, 9) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/121103332/

Comments