Weekly Legal Update | 28 Sep 2026
The third week of Sep 2026 has been particularly important for military law and disability pension litigation in India.
1. Rajasthan High Court Immediately Applies Col. N.C. Isaac to a Large Batch of Disability Pension Cases
Court: Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur
Date: 17 September 2026
Lead matter: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 27/2024 and connected matters
Neutral Citation: 2026:RJ-JD:44903-DB
Only two days after the Supreme Court decided Col. N.C. Isaac, the Rajasthan High Court applied it to a large batch of pending Armed Forces disability pension cases.
The batch included cases concerning former Army and Air Force personnel and challenges involving decisions of the Armed Forces Tribunal.
The parties agreed that the questions involved were now governed by the Supreme Court’s judgment.
What did the Rajasthan High Court do?
The High Court set aside the impugned orders in the batch and remanded the matters to the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench Jaipur, Circuit Bench Jodhpur, for fresh consideration individually in accordance with Col. N.C. Isaac.
The AFT was asked to endeavour to decide the cases within three months.
Why is this important for pending AFT cases?
This shows the immediate practical effect of N.C. Isaac.
Pending disability-pension cases cannot now be decided merely through a standard formula such as:
“No disability at entry + disability arose during service = attributable/aggravated by military service.”
The Tribunal will have to examine:
- the particular disease;
- the Medical Board’s reasoning;
- the individual’s service conditions;
- medical and service history;
- causal connection with military service; and
- delay in approaching the judicial forum.
The Supreme Court has simultaneously made clear that a Medical Board opinion deserves respect but is not immune from scrutiny where it is unreasoned or ignores relevant material.
Litigation takeaway
In fresh OAs, advocates should plead the specific service factors capable of causing or aggravating the particular disability.
Generic pleading of “stress and strain of military service” may no longer be sufficient in every case.
Read the Rajasthan High Court judgment
2. Kerala High Court: Article 226 Cannot Be Used to Revive a Time-Barred Challenge to an AFT Order
Court: Kerala High Court
Date: 17 September 2026
Case: Union of India v. Ex Havildar Nazurulla Baig
W.P.(C) No. 19603 of 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:71099
This is another important judgment for AFT practitioners and veterans who have already succeeded before the Tribunal.
The AFT Kochi had passed an order on 22 December 2021, granting disability pension to the veteran at 50% for two years. The Union ultimately pursued its writ challenge years later. The High Court noted that although the petition had earlier been presented and returned for defects, it was subsequently represented after a delay of 561 days.
What did the Kerala High Court hold?
The Court recognised that High Courts retain constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 to examine AFT decisions in appropriate circumstances. But constitutional jurisdiction cannot ordinarily be used to resurrect a cause of action which has become unenforceable because of limitation. The Court specifically referred to the 90-day period under Section 30 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 while examining the belated challenge.
The Government’s writ petition was dismissed.
Disability pension was also upheld
The veteran’s disability was Entrapment Neuropathy (Right Popliteal Nerve), assessed at 30% for two years. The High Court noted that there was no disease recorded when he entered military service and applied the established statutory presumptions concerning disability pension. It referred, among others, to Dharamvir Singh, Sukhvinder Singh and Bijender Singh.
Why this judgment matters
This gives successful AFT litigants an important preliminary objection when the Government challenges an AFT judgment after substantial delay. The first questions in such a writ should now be:
When was the AFT order passed? When was it received? Why was the statutory remedy not pursued within time? What explains the subsequent delay?
Article 226 remains constitutionally available, but it should not automatically become a substitute for a statutory remedy which was allowed to become time-barred.
Read Union of India v. Nazurulla Baig
3. Allahabad High Court Continues Important Disability-Pension Jurisprudence
On 14 September 2026, the Allahabad High Court dealt with multiple challenges arising from AFT disability-pension decisions, including:
Union of India v. Ex Sep Babban Thakur,
Union of India v. Col. Rajiv Bhardwaj (Retd.), and
Union of India v. Ex Ris Santosh Singh (Retd.).
These cases involved the familiar but important question of disabilities being classified by Release Medical Boards as Neither Attributable to Nor Aggravated by Military Service (NANA).
In Col. Rajiv Bhardwaj, for example, the officer had served for more than three decades. His Release Medical Board assessed Primary Hypertension at 30% for life and Coronary Artery Disease at 30% for life, with composite disability at 50% for life, but classified the disabilities as NANA. The AFT had questioned the reasoning, including the reliance upon onset at a peace station. Similarly, Santosh Singh concerned Primary Hypertension assessed at 30% for life, where the AFT had found the Medical Board’s reasoning based upon onset at a peace station insufficient.
Why these cases remain relevant after N.C. Isaac
The timing is interesting. These judgments came on 14 September, while the Supreme Court delivered N.C. Isaac on 15 September. The future significance of these cases must therefore be read subject to the Supreme Court’s clarification the following day that Medical Board reasoning must be scrutinised individually and that Dharamvir Singh cannot simply be mechanically applied without examining the governing rules and medical material.
This is precisely why N.C. Isaac is likely to reshape the manner in which disability-pension cases are argued before the AFT.
5. Criminal Acquittal Does Not Automatically Wipe Out Departmental Proceedings
Court: Madras High Court
Date: 15 September 2026
Case: State of Tamil Nadu v. Selvin Paul
Although this is a police-service case rather than an Armed Forces case, the principle is highly relevant to service law, CAPF disciplinary proceedings and departmental inquiries.
The case concerned a Grade II Police Constable of the Armed Reserve who faced departmental proceedings.
The Madras High Court reiterated the important distinction between the standard of proof in a criminal trial and that in departmental proceedings.
A criminal case generally requires proof beyond reasonable doubt.
A departmental proceeding ordinarily operates on preponderance of probabilities.
Consequently, acquittal in the criminal case does not by itself automatically invalidate departmental punishment.
Why this matters for military and CAPF practitioners
This principle frequently arises where the same factual allegations result in:
- criminal proceedings; and
- disciplinary proceedings.
The employee should therefore contest the departmental inquiry seriously rather than assuming that a future criminal acquittal will automatically restore his service benefits.
The nature of the acquittal, identity of evidence, findings in the departmental inquiry and applicable service rules remain important.
This judgment is particularly useful in disciplinary cases involving police and CAPF personnel.
5. Assam High Court: Pre-Regularisation Service Can Matter for Family Pension
Court: Gauhati High Court
Date: 14 September 2026
Case: Chaya Rani Das v. State of Assam & Ors.
The petitioner’s deceased husband had initially worked as a Muster Roll Labour from 1988 and was regularised only shortly before his death in 2003.
The Government argued that he had not completed the minimum period of regular service necessary for family pension.
The High Court rejected the narrow approach.
Relying upon the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Punjab School Education Board v. Satnam Singh, 2026 INSC 965, it held that the service rendered before regularisation was required to be treated as qualifying service in the circumstances of the case.
The widow was consequently held entitled to family pension and other pensionary benefits.
Why service-law practitioners should note this
The judgment is useful in cases involving:
temporary service, muster-roll service, subsequent regularisation, qualifying service and family pension.
The broader lesson is that pension entitlement cannot always be determined simply by looking at the formal date of regular appointment. Earlier continuous service may become relevant depending upon the governing pension rules and the nature of regularisation.
Read Chaya Rani Das v. State of Assam
About the Author
Ajit Kakkar & Associates, New Delhi, appears before the Supreme Court of India, Delhi High Court and other high courts, the Central Administrative Tribunal and Armed Forces Tribunal (Principal Bench) in matters related to Service law for Army, Navy, Air Force, BSF, CRPF, CISF, ITBP, Coast Guard, Assam Rifles, GREF, Delhi Police, Civilian Govt Employees and other Govt employees.
