AFT Pension Cases: When Does Sending a Soldier Back to Authorities for reconsideration?
By Advocate Wg Cdr Ajit Kakkar (Retd)
For a soldier seeking pension, approaching the Armed Forces Tribunal involves time, legal expenses, travel and considerable anxiety. When the case ends with a direction asking the authorities to reconsider the claim, an understandable question arises: could the Tribunal have decided the entitlement itself?
Sending a case back to the authorities can be a sound legal solution. However, it should serve a clear purpose. Otherwise, the soldier may complete one round of litigation only to begin another.
The recent decision in Ex Sep Ajay Singh Thalor v. Union of India, OA 447/2023, decided by the AFT Regional Bench, Jaipur, on 1 September 2026, provides an opportunity to examine this issue respectfully.
What did the AFT decide?
The applicant joined the Army in January 2020 and was invalided out in March 2022 with “Mixed Anxiety and Depressive Disorder”. The Medical Board assessed his disability at 40% for life but classified it as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. He received invalid gratuity and sought disability pension or invalid pension.
The Tribunal recorded that the Medical Board considered him unfit for civil employment requiring high mental fitness. In paragraph 6, it referred to the Ministry of Defence policy dated 16 July 2020 concerning invalid pension for personnel with less than ten years’ qualifying service. However the Tribunal remitted the matter to the respondents for consideration under that policy. It expected a decision within six months of receipt of the order. The OA was disposed of without costs.
The order therefore secured reconsideration, but it did not establish an enforceable entitlement to pension.
Why might the Tribunal have sent the case back?
A possible explanation lies in the wording of the medical assessment.
Being unfit for civil employment requiring high mental fitness is narrower than being permanently incapacitated from civil employment generally. As issued, the 16 July 2020 policy extended invalid pension to qualifying personnel with less than ten years’ service whose infirmity permanently incapacitated them from both military service and civil re-employment. (desw.gov.in)
The Tribunal may therefore have considered further examination necessary. This is an inference: the order does not expressly identify that distinction as an unresolved question or explain what further evidence the respondents should obtain.
That omission matters. A remand is easier to understand and accept when the order specifies precisely what remains to be decided.
Could the AFT have granted pension directly?
The AFT has jurisdiction to adjudicate pension disputes. Section 14(5) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act expressly requires it to decide questions of both law and fact raised before it. Section 14(4) also provides powers to obtain documents and receive evidence. Where entitlement is established, the Tribunal can grant substantive relief. (indiacode.nic.in)
However, having the power to grant relief does not mean that every applicant’s entitlement is already proved. The proper question is whether the existing evidence and applicable law were sufficient for a final decision.
There was also relevant judicial authority deserving examination. In Ex Rect/MT Thangamuthu M. v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 34289/2025, decided on 13 March 2026, the Kerala High Court considered an invalid pension claim involving a mental disability assessed at 40% for life. The respondents relied on the applicant’s fitness for civil employment. The Court discussed Lt. A.K. Thapa (Released) and the challenge to the civil re-employment condition, then directed grant of invalid pension, subject to eligibility under the Regulations, within three months. (indiankanoon.org)
That judgment strengthens the argument for examining entitlement judicially. Its application to the Jaipur case would require consideration of the facts and relevant precedent; a Kerala High Court judgment is not automatically binding on the Jaipur Bench.
What has the Supreme Court said about orders to reconsider?
In A.P. SRTC v. G. Srinivas Reddy, (2006) 3 SCC 674, paragraph 18, the Supreme Court cautioned against disposing of cases through directions to reconsider when the facts needed to decide the issue are already available. Workload and complexity do not justify avoiding a necessary decision. This passage is reproduced in a subsequent High Court judgment. (indiankanoon.org)
Similarly, in Comptroller and Auditor-General of India v. K.S. Jagannathan, (1986) 2 SCC 679, the Supreme Court recognised the need for effective judicial directions where administrative discretion has been wrongly exercised. It also recognised that another reconsideration could produce further delay and fresh litigation. That case concerned constitutional court powers; the AFT’s powers must be understood within its own statute. (indiankanoon.org)
These decisions support a practical principle: remand should resolve a genuine remaining issue, rather than postpone a decision that the court can already make.
When is remand a viable solution?
Reconsideration can help when essential records are missing, a necessary medical assessment has not been completed, or the competent authority must first decide a factual question under the correct legal test.
But an effective remand should identify:
- The precise issue requiring further examination.
- The findings and legal principles the authorities must follow.
- A firm, justified deadline.
- A requirement to communicate a reasoned decision.
- A practical means of addressing non-compliance.
Where entitlement is settled and only calculation or pension processing remains, directing implementation may be more useful than reopening eligibility.
What could have made this order stronger?
In the present case, the Tribunal could have explained whether the civil employment certificate was insufficient, whether further medical clarification was necessary, and why that clarification could not be obtained during the proceedings.
The order also does not expressly resolve the original disability pension claim, despite recording the applicant’s reliance on Dharamvir Singh. Disability pension and invalid pension involve different legal tests. Identifying the alternative invalid pension route should be accompanied by a clear explanation of how the other substantive prayer is being treated.
A shorter, firm deadline, with reasons for any longer period, would also have better addressed the applicant’s circumstances. Six months for another administrative decision is a significant additional wait for someone already invalided out of service.
Does this justify questioning confidence in the AFT (RB) Jaipur?
This order does not provide a basis for attributing lack of confidence or unwillingness to decide to the Tribunal. It does, however, justify examining whether the relief was sufficiently effective. Repeated reconsideration orders, if unsupported by clear reasons, can weaken a litigant’s confidence in the process. The concern should be expressed through the reasoning and practical consequences of the order. The AFT plays a vital role in protecting the rights of Armed Forces personnel. Constructive scrutiny of its remedies can strengthen that role.
In my opinion a soldier’s case should be sent back only when something necessary remains to be determined. Where the record and law establish entitlement, a final decision offers the clearest path to meaningful relief.
