JUDGMENT : K. NATARAJAN. J. This writ petition is filed by the widow of an Air Force personnel challenging the order passed by the Armed Force Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi (herein referred to as ‘AFT, Kochi’) in O.A.No.243 of 2023 for restricting the arrears of pension to three years prior to the filing of the Original Application before the AFT. 2. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Central Government counsel for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner is that her husband enrolled as a Corporal in the Indian Air Force on 31.05.1974 and was discharged from service on 31.05.1989. Subsequently, he was in receipt of service pension with effect from 01.06.1989. Later, he died on 13.11.1993. No children were born out of the said wedlock and the petitioner is the widow of the deceased Air Force pensioner. She was receiving the family pension with effect from 14.11.1993. Subsequently, after 1996, she became bedridden due to ill health resulting from an accident and was unable to move. She was under treatment for long time under various systems of medicine, including Allopathic and Ayurvedic treatments. During this period, the authorities discontinued her family pension. Subsequently, upon knowing that the Central Government intended to honor the widows of the Armed Forces personnel who secured the Gallantry awards such as Shaurya Chakra, she approached the respondents to enquire about the stoppage of her family pension. The respondents directed her to submit a non-remarriage certificate as well as life certificate. Despite compliance, the respondents did not choose to pass any orders on her request. Consequently, the petitioner was constrained to approach the AFT. After the respondent/Union of India entered appearance and filed their counter affidavit, the AFT disposed of the application, allowing the application filed by the petitioner in part by granting the family pension to the petitioner. However, the Tribunal restricted the arrears of pension to a period of three years prior to the filing of the Original Application. Being aggrieved by the said restriction of arrears, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that the AFT has rightly granted the family pension to the petitioner, but, committed error in restricting the arrears to three years prior to the filing of the Original Application. Being aggrieved by the said restriction of arrears, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that the AFT has rightly granted the family pension to the petitioner, but, committed error in restricting the arrears to three years prior to the filing of the Original Application. The learned counsel further submitted that when the petitioner approached the Defence Pension Disbursing Office (DPDO), the authorities did not object to her reinstatement request, but instead directed the petitioner to produce a non-remarriage certificate as per Ext.P5 on 23.12.2021. Subsequently, she has produced the non remarriage certificate. In spite of the same, the respondents have not passed the order for granting the family pension to the petitioner. Therefore, she approached the Tribunal. Such being the case, the question of inordinate delay of 28 years does not arise. The learned counsel further contended that the AFT has committed error in restricting the payment of arrears of pension which is against the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various decisions and therefore prayed that the petition be allowed and the respondents be directed to grant the entire arrears of pension from the date at which the pension was discontinued. In support of this contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.K. Mastan Bee v. General Manager, South Central Railway and another [2003 KHC 733] , Shri M.L.Patil (Dead) Through LRs v. The State of Goa and Another [2022 Livelaw (SC) 537], Union of India through its Secretary & Ors. v. SGT Girish Kumar and Ors. [C.A.Nos.6820-6824 of 2018]. 5. Per contra, the learned Central Government counsel appearing for the respondents seriously objected the petition and supported the order passed by the AFT restricting the arrears of the family pension on the ground that the pension had been discontinued as early as 1996. It is submitted that the petitioner failed to approach the authorities to ascertain the reason for such discontinuance and only raised the issue once the respondents initiated an enquiry regarding Gallantry award holders in order to honor the widows of the personnel who had secured the said award during their service. She has kept quiet for more than 28 years without seeking the pension. Therefore, the delay has to be properly condoned. The delay was not condoned and was not explained by the petitioner. She has kept quiet for more than 28 years without seeking the pension. Therefore, the delay has to be properly condoned. The delay was not condoned and was not explained by the petitioner. Such being the case, granting arrears of pension from 1996 does not arises. In support of this contentions, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India (UOI) and Ors. v. Tarsem Singh [ (2008) 8 SCC 648 ]. 6. Upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned Central Government counsel for the respondents, it is not in dispute that the husband of the petitioner was working in the Air Force. He was enrolled on 31.05.1974 and was discharged from service in the year 1989 and he received the pension until his death on 13.11.1993. Thereafter, it is also an admitted fact that the petitioner is the widow of the said Air Force personnel and no children were born out of their wedlock. She started receiving the family pension from 14.11.1993. As per the family pension rules, the petitioner is required to submit a Life Certificate annually to continue receiving her pension. However, due to severe injuries sustained in an accident, she was laid up for 2 years and was unable to approach the authorities during the period. It was only after partial recovery that she could finally approach the Welfare Officers for the purpose of granting pension. In the meanwhile, the Central Government had initiated a process to trace the whereabouts of the families of Gallantry Award winners for the purpose of honoring them. Since the petitioner's husband was a recipient of a Gallantry Award, she again approached the authorities upon learning of this initiative. The respondents directed her to submit a non- remarriage certificate along with a life certificate. Accordingly, she produced the required documents, including a valid non- remarriage certificate confirming that she had not remarried following the demise of her late husband. However, the respondents failed to pass any orders either allowing or rejecting her claim. Consequently, the petitioner was constrained to approach the Tribunal which allowed her application in part. 7. During the intervening period, the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, issued a letter on 06.01.2011 for grant of family pension to childless widow of Armed Forces Officers and Personnel Below Officer Rank (PBOR). Consequently, the petitioner was constrained to approach the Tribunal which allowed her application in part. 7. During the intervening period, the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, issued a letter on 06.01.2011 for grant of family pension to childless widow of Armed Forces Officers and Personnel Below Officer Rank (PBOR). The said letter clarified that the childless widow of a deceased Armed personnel or Air Force personnel who expired prior to 01.01.2006, shall also be eligible for family pension irrespective of the fact that the remarriage of the widow had taken place prior to/on or after 01.01.2006. The only condition is that the widow must be childless, having no children born of her wedlock with the deceased Armed Forces or Air Force personnel. Accordingly, this order has been implemented from 01.01.2006. Considering the order of the Union of India, whether the petitioner remarried subsequent to the death of her husband who was an Air Force personnel, is wholly immaterial to her entitlement to receive the family pension. The Tribunal rightly held at its judgment by granting the family pension to the petitioner. The Tribunal has held that she is entitled for the arrears of pension only for a period of three years prior to the filing of the Original Application before the Tribunal which is under challenge. 8. The counsel for the respondents has supported the order of the Tribunal based upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Tarsem Singh case (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph 6 has held that if there is an inordinate delay, normally court should not grant the arrears and it should restrict for 3 years from the date of filing the petition and it should not grant any interest on arrears. However, the counsel for the petitioner has produced the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SGT Girish Kumar case (supra) which was delivered on 12.02.2026 wherein the Apex court has considered the Tarsem Singh case (supra) at paragraph 22. However, at paragraph 18 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that in view of the law laid down by a three-judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India and Others v. Ram Avtar , [2014 SCC Online SC 1761], the principles laid down in Tarsem Singh (supra) case are non- applicable. However, at paragraph 18 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that in view of the law laid down by a three-judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India and Others v. Ram Avtar , [2014 SCC Online SC 1761], the principles laid down in Tarsem Singh (supra) case are non- applicable. In view of the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Avtar (supra), paragraph 22 of the said ruling is extracted below for ease of reference: “22. The reliance placed by the appellant on the decision of a twoJudge Bench of this Court in Tarsem Singh (supra) is of no assistance to it, as the legal landscape did not remain static after decision in Tarsem Singh. Subsequently, a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Ram Avtar (supra), decided the issue of applicability of instruction dated 31.01.2001 and the aforesaid in rem decision is . For, yet another reason, the decision in Tarsem Singh (supra) has no application to the case in hand as ex-servicemen in the instant appeals are already in receipt of disability pension and are only seeking re- computation of the disability pension. The right to approach the Tribunal accrued to ex- servicemen only on 10.12.2014 i.e., when the decision in Ram Avtar (supra) was rendered by this Court. Therefore, the bar contained in Section 22(1)(c) of the Act has no application to the claims filed by the ex-servicemen before the Tribunal. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the original applications filed by the ex-servicemen do not suffer from any delay or laches disentitling them from claiming the relief of arrears of disability pension. Thus, the objections founded on the delay and limitation are without any merit.” It has also been brought to our notice that in a recent judgment delivered on 24.03.2026 in Union of India and others v. Balakrishnan Mullikote (in a batch of connected appeals), the Hon’ble Supreme Court had an occasion to revisit the law laid down in Tarsem Singh (supra), Ram Avtar (supra) and SGT Girish Kumar case (supra). The relevant observations of the Apex Court at paragraph 43 of the said judgment are extracted hereunder: 43. Since the judgment of this Court in Union of India & Ors. The relevant observations of the Apex Court at paragraph 43 of the said judgment are extracted hereunder: 43. Since the judgment of this Court in Union of India & Ors. vs. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648 was not invoked during the course of arguments, this Court refrains from examining the issue of limitation in the present matter. Nonetheless, it is pertinent to note that a recent coordinate Bench, in Union of India through its Secretary & Ors. vs. SGT Girish Kumar & Ors., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 194, has reaffirmed the settled principle that pension is neither a bounty nor an ex gratia payment dependent upon the largesse of the State. It constitutes a deferred portion of compensation for past service, which, upon fulfillment of the governing conditions, matures into a vested and enforceable right. Pensionary entitlements, therefore, partake the character of property and cannot be withheld, curtailed, or extinguished save by authority of law. The relevant portion of the judgment passed by the coordinate Bench in Union of India through its Secretary & Ors. vs. SGT Girish Kumar & Ors. (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow:- “…This Court has, in a consistent line of decisions, recognised that right to receive disability pension is a valuable right and once found due, the benefit of the same has to be given from the date it became due. The same cannot be curtailed by restricting the benefit to a period of three years preceding the filing of the original application……The reliance placed by the appellant on the decision of a two-Judge Bench of this Court in Tarsem Singh (supra) is of no assistance to it, as the legal landscape did not remain static after decision in Tarsem Singh. Subsequently, a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Ram Avtar (supra), decided the issue of applicability of instruction dated 31.01.2001 and the aforesaid decision is in rem……Thus, the objections founded on the delay and limitation are without any merit….” In any event, the said question of law is left open. It is also pertinent to note in the case of SGT Girish Kumar case (supra), the Apex Court has referred at paragraph 18 that the Union of India conferring upon all eligible pensioners the benefit of arrears of pension by issuing notifications in concurrence with the Finance department and taken as a policy decision. It is also pertinent to note in the case of SGT Girish Kumar case (supra), the Apex Court has referred at paragraph 18 that the Union of India conferring upon all eligible pensioners the benefit of arrears of pension by issuing notifications in concurrence with the Finance department and taken as a policy decision. The Apex court has also held at paragraph 22 that Tarsem Singh (supra) will not be applicable to the case on hand as the person was already receiving the disability pension and was seeking only re-computation of the disability pension. Likewise, in this case, the petitioner has not approached the authority for granting of pension before filing the original application. But, she received the pension from 1994 to 1996. Thereafter, it was continued because of non- production of life certificate by the petitioner. Although there was an initial restriction on granting family pension to widows who had remarried, the subsequent notification issued in the year 2011 was given retrospective effect from 01.01.2006. By virtue of this amendment, the barrier of remarriage has been entirely dismantled, making it clear that even a widow who remarried prior to 01.01.2006 remains fully entitled to the pensionary benefits. Such being the case, the petitioner being a childless widow with no children born of her wedlock with the deceased Air Force personnel, is entitled for the family pension. The respondents initially sanctioned and paid the pension for two years, but thereafter discontinued it. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to receive the pension from the date of its discontinuation by the respondents, rather than from a date restricted to three years prior to the filing of the Original Application. Therefore the order of the Tribunal is not correct. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to receive the family pension continuously from 01.07.1996 onwards, covering the entire period during which the respondents failed to disburse her rightful pensionary benefits. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.