Krishna Kumar v. Union of India: rounding-off of disability pension on superannuation

The facts in brief

The applicant, an ex-serviceman, retired from service on superannuation — that is, on attaining the age of retirement or completing his tenure — rather than being invalided out on medical grounds. He was found to be suffering from a disability assessed at 40% composite, attributable to or aggravated by his military service.

The authorities granted him disability pension but declined to "round off" the 40% to 50% for life. Their position was that the rounding-off benefit was available only to personnel invalided out of service, and not to those who had served out their tenure and retired on superannuation. On that view, a soldier who carried a service-connected disability through to the end of his engagement and then retired in the ordinary course would receive his disability pension on the assessed percentage, without the rounding-off that an invalided-out colleague would enjoy.

The applicant moved the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench at Lucknow, in O.A. No. 14 of 2019, seeking the rounding-off benefit. The Tribunal — comprising Justice Umesh Chandra Srivastava, Chairperson and Judicial Member, and Vice Admiral Abhay Raghunath Karve, Administrative Member — heard the matter and allowed the application.

What rounding-off means and why it matters

Disability pension for armed-forces personnel is calculated by reference to the assessed percentage of disability. Under the applicable rules, a disability assessed within a band is rounded up to a notional figure for the purpose of computing the pension — so that, on the settled approach, a 40% composite disability is treated as 50% for life. The rounding-off thus has a direct and recurring effect on the quantum of pension a disabled ex-serviceman receives for the rest of his life.

The dispute the Tribunal confronted was not about whether rounding-off existed as a benefit — the authorities conceded it for invalided-out personnel — but about who was entitled to it. The authorities sought to confine it to one class (those invalided out) and to withhold it from another (those who retired on superannuation with a qualifying disability). The applicant's case was that no such distinction could lawfully be drawn.

The Tribunal applies Ram Avtar

The Tribunal resolved the question by applying the law settled by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ram Avtar (decided 10 December 2014). It held that the benefit of rounding-off cannot be confined to those invalided out while being denied to those who serve out their tenure and retire with a service-connected disability.

Because Ram Avtar operates as a judgment in rem on this point — settling the entitlement for the class of disabled ex-servicemen generally, rather than for the litigant alone — the Tribunal extended the rounded-off pension to the applicant and rounded his 40% composite disability to 50% for life. The discriminatory distinction between invalidment and superannuation cases, having been rejected by the Supreme Court, could not be sustained by the authorities at the tribunal level.

No discrimination between invalidment and superannuation

The principle the order vindicates is one of non-discrimination among similarly placed disabled personnel. Whether a soldier is invalided out before the end of his engagement or serves it out and retires on superannuation, the relevant fact for the rounding-off benefit is the same: a disability attributable to or aggravated by military service. The mode of exit from service does not change the character of the disability or the rationale for the benefit. To grant rounding-off to one class and deny it to the other, on the basis only of how the soldier left the service, is to draw a distinction the entitlement does not support.

This is the recurring fact-pattern that has generated thousands of applications before the Armed Forces Tribunal. The order is a clean, reported standalone AFT application of the rounding-off entitlement, stating the principle without qualification.

The vice in the authorities' position was that it tied the benefit to the manner of a soldier's exit from service rather than to the fact of a service-connected disability. A soldier invalided out and a soldier who serves his full tenure and retires on superannuation may carry the identical disability, attributable to or aggravated by the same kind of service; the only difference is the route by which each left the force. To grant the rounding-off to the first and deny it to the second is to make the quantum of a lifelong disability pension turn on a circumstance — the timing and mode of retirement — that has nothing to do with the disability or its connection to service. The Tribunal's refusal to sustain that distinction restores the focus to the feature that actually justifies the benefit.

A judgment in rem and the discipline of precedent

The Tribunal's reliance on the in-rem character of Ram Avtar deserves emphasis, because it explains why the applicant did not need to re-argue the entitlement from first principles. When the Supreme Court settles a question of pension entitlement for a class — here, disabled ex-servicemen claiming rounding-off — the determination operates not merely between the parties to that case but as a statement of the law governing the class. A subsequent applicant who falls within the class is entitled to the benefit of the settled position; the authorities cannot require each individual to litigate the principle afresh.

That framing also exposes the difficulty in the authorities' stance. Having conceded rounding-off for invalided-out personnel, they continued to resist it for superannuation retirees notwithstanding a Supreme Court decision that, on its terms, covered both. To persist in the distinction was, in effect, to ask the Tribunal to read down a binding precedent so as to exclude a class the precedent had included. The Tribunal declined to do so, applying the settled law as it stood and extending the rounded-off pension accordingly.

The discipline has a practical dimension for the disabled ex-serviceman. Pension litigation is slow and the litigant is often elderly and of modest means. A regime in which each claimant must re-establish a long-settled entitlement imposes a burden that the in-rem principle is designed to relieve. By treating Ram Avtar as governing and applying it directly, the Tribunal gave effect to that relief in the individual case.

The structure of the forum

The decision also illustrates the constitution of the Armed Forces Tribunal under the AFT Act, 2007. The Tribunal sits in benches that pair a Judicial Member with an Administrative Member — here, Justice U.C. Srivastava as Chairperson and Judicial Member, and Vice Admiral A.R. Karve as Administrative Member. The combination brings together judicial expertise in adjudication and service expertise in the practical realities of military administration, exercising the Tribunal's original jurisdiction under Section 14 of the Act over service and pension matters of armed-forces personnel.

Why the order matters, and the apex sequel

This is the corpus's first — and foundational — standalone AFT order. It demonstrates the Tribunal's two-member judicial-and-administrative bench structure, and it bridges the corpus's Supreme Court service line into the specialised armed-forces forum.

Although decided in 2020, the order is included as the foundational, fully-coram-verified standalone AFT decision the brief permits, standalone AFT orders being sparsely reported on the allowed domains. Its doctrine remains live. It was reaffirmed at the apex level in Union of India v. Sgt Girish Kumar (2026 INSC 149, 13 February 2026), where the Supreme Court held disability pension to be a "vested property" under Article 300A of the Constitution and barred limitation and laches defences against arrears, once Ram Avtar had crystallised the law on 10 December 2014. The Krishna Kumar order anchors the rounding-off entitlement at tribunal level; Girish Kumar closes the loop on arrears. Together they explain why disability-pension litigation continues to flood the Armed Forces Tribunal and the constitutional courts, and why the rounding-off entitlement — once contested at the margins of who qualifies — is now settled across both forums.

Related on Valkya

• Ex-Sqn Ldr R. Sood v. Union of India: discharge higher than acquittal
• Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya: permanent commission for women officers
• Lt Col Pooja Pal v. Union of India

Sources

1. SCC OnLine (SCC Times), "AFT | Individual retiring by superannuation, found suffering from disability attributable to/aggravated by military service, is entitled to benefit of rounding off of disability pension": https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/01/05/aft-individual-retiring-by-superannuation-found-suffering-from-disability-attributable-to-aggravated-by-military-service-is-entitled-to-benefit-of-rounding-off-of-disability-pension-tribunal-stat/
2. Verdictum, "Union of India v. Sgt Girish Kumar (2026 INSC 149)" — apex reaffirmation on arrears and limitation: https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/union-of-india-v-sgt-girish-kumar-2026-insc-149-vested-property-army-navy-ex-servicemen-pension-1607379
3. LiveLaw, "Arrears Of Disability Pension Broad-Banding In Armed Forces Cannot Be Restricted To 3 Years Before Claim: Supreme Court" (Girish Kumar context): https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/arrears-of-disability-pension-broad-banding-in-armed-forces-cannot-be-restricted-to-3-years-before-claim-supreme-court-522911
4. Armed Forces Tribunal — official site: https://aftdelhi.nic.in/