This week’s strongest developments are concentrated in disability pension, AFT/High Court interface, compulsory retirement, CAPF disciplinary law, pension qualifying service, and implementation of AFT orders. I would put Items 1–5 in the “must read” category.
- Union of India v. Lt. Col. Sunny Thomas (Retd.) — Kerala High Court, 10 September 2026, disability pension
The High Court upheld the AFT Kochi order granting disability element for Primary Hypertension assessed at 30% for life, rounded to 50%. The important point is that the Release Medical Board itself had found aggravation by stress and strain of military service. The Court applied the presumption that where no disease was recorded at entry, subsequent disability is presumed attributable/aggravated unless the employer produces cogent contrary medical material. It relied on Dharamvir Singh, Sukhvinder Singh, Bijender Singh and the recent Rajumon T.M. line of authority. It also held the Union’s belated writ challenge problematic in light of the 90-day statutory appeal regime under Section 30 AFT Act.
This Order is immediately useful against mechanical NANA findings, “lifestyle disease” reasoning and attempts to override a favourable Medical Board without a reasoned contrary medical opinion. It also gives an additional limitation/jurisdiction objection when the Government bypasses the statutory AFT appeal period and approaches the High Court late.
2. S.S. Das v. Union of India, 2026 INSC 980, Supreme Court, 9 September 2026 — FR 56(j) compulsory retirement
The Supreme Court quashed the compulsory retirement of an Indian Trade Service officer who had been promoted on merit shortly before being branded “dead wood”. The Court treated the two positions as fundamentally inconsistent: a recent merit promotion based on scrutiny of the service record is powerful evidence against a subsequent conclusion that the officer has suddenly become useless or of doubtful integrity. The Court described the exercise as vitiated by malice in law, restored pecuniary and notional promotional benefits and imposed ₹15 lakh in costs/compensation.
This order is exceptionally high value for FR 56(j), premature retirement, screening-board and “public interest” retirement litigation. The judgment provides a strong way of attacking compulsory retirement where recent promotions/APARs contradict the alleged adverse assessment. The Court also warns that FR 56(j) cannot become a disguised disciplinary proceeding avoiding Article 311 safeguards.
3. Ministry of Defence implementation of Major General–Brigadier pay/pension anomaly 31 August 2026
Following prolonged AFT execution proceedings and contempt notices from the Delhi High Court, the Government has conditionally implemented AFT orders for 82 Major Generals and equivalent Navy/Air Force officers whose pay/pension had fallen below that of junior Brigadiers because of the MSP structure. Pay is to be retrospectively stepped up to the immediate junior, the difference treated as “personal pay” constituting pay for all purposes, with arrears, revised pension and consequential leave-encashment benefits. Implementation remains subject to pending High Court/Supreme Court proceedings and refund undertakings.
Two points deserve immediate exploitation: first, it is a powerful precedent for senior-junior pay/pension anomaly cases; secondly, the Government appears still to be extending relief primarily to litigants rather than automatically to all similarly situated officers. That keeps alive the broader judgment-in-rem/equal treatment/avoidable litigation issue. It is also useful in execution/contempt strategy where AFT judgments remain unimplemented.
It is essential that particularly for senior-rank pension, last-rank-pay and AFT execution work.
4. AFT Ex-Agniveer Anas Chauhan case, order dated 17 August 2026, reported this week
The AFT Principal Bench quashed the Army’s discharge of an Agniveer for not disclosing an FIR relating to an incident when he was a minor. The Allahabad High Court had already directed that the criminal case should not be treated as pending for Agniveer recruitment purposes. The AFT held that this protection bound the Army; if the Army believed the order did not cover non-disclosure, it should have sought clarification/modification rather than independently nullifying its effect. The Tribunal also relied on juvenile-justice protections and ordered reinstatement with consequential benefits.
This is broader than an Agniveer case. It supports three propositions: military administrative authorities remain bound by High Court orders; childhood/juvenile involvement cannot mechanically be converted into suppression/moral unfitness; and recruitment-form non-disclosure has to be examined in its statutory and factual context rather than treated as automatically fatal.
This is Essential to read for recruitment, discharge and verification cases.
5. Sahebji s/o Banesing Raijada v. Union of India — Gujarat High Court, 31 August 2026 CRPF service counting for pension
A former CRPF member who later joined All India Radio sought counting of his earlier CRPF service. The Court treated CRPF service as relevant prior civil service and focused on Rule 28 CCS Pension Rules, under which interruption between two spells can be condoned so earlier service counts as qualifying service. The fact that the employee had not expressly claimed the previous service at the time of subsequent appointment was not treated as sufficient to extinguish the substantive pension entitlement.
The CAPF personnel subsequently absorbed/re-employed in civilian government organisations. Importantly, the case avoids the common mistake of trying to force CRPF service into the “military service” provision; Rule 28 provides the cleaner route.
This is essential particularly for pension aggregation and interruption-of-service cases.
6. Shyam Singh v. Union of India & Ors. Calcutta High Court, 2 September 2026 — CISF disciplinary proceedings versus criminal investigation
The Court held that a police final report does not automatically invalidate a departmental proceeding. It distinguished the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Ex Sqn Ldr R. Sood v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 590, noting that the Air Force/Army statutory scheme considered there contained provisions affecting subsequent service action, whereas no equivalent CISF statutory bar was established. The standards of proof and purposes of the two proceedings remain different.
This order has sharpened the distinction between Armed Forces statutory trial regimes and ordinary CAPF departmental proceedings. Counsel should therefore resist using criminal acquittal/closure cases across Army/Air Force/CISF/CRPF interchangeably without checking the governing statutory provision.
This order is useful for BSF/CISF/CRPF cases involving parallel FIRs.
7. Som Nath v. Union of India Tripura High Court, WP(C) 579/2025, 2026:THC:1105 — SSFC judicial review
The High Court upheld the dismissal of a BSF Head Constable who, while allegedly intoxicated on observation-post duty, fired all 20 rounds from his INSAS rifle and later aimed it at superior officers. The SSFC had proceeded after recording a plea of not guilty and considering evidence; the High Court reiterated that Article 226 review of Security Force Court findings is not a rehearing on evidence and interference requires jurisdictional error, procedural illegality, natural-justice violation or perversity.
The practice value of this order is Factually adverse to delinquent personnel, but useful because it identifies the correct judicial-review gateways against SSFC/GSFC proceedings. The judgment can be used by petitioners too: plead specifically under jurisdiction, mandatory-rule breach, natural justice or perversity rather than merely asking the High Court to reassess evidence.
8. Punjab School Education Board v. Satnam Singh & Ors., 2026 INSC 965 — Supreme Court, 8 September 2026 — past service and old pension
The Supreme Court upheld entitlement of long-serving employees, initially engaged on contractual/ad hoc/daily-wage terms but subsequently regularised, to count earlier service for pension and receive the old pension regime where substantive service had commenced before the cut-off.
Although this order is not military-specific, it is worth retaining for qualifying-service, regularisation and pension-cut-off disputes. Its reasoning may assist where departments seek to erase long periods of actual continuous service merely because formal regularisation occurred later.
9. Ram Lal v. Post UP Circle — CAT Allahabad, 3 September 2026 — temporary status and pension
CAT held that roughly 36 years of uninterrupted service by a contingency-paid Chowkidar, granted temporary status and later appointed MTS, could not be defeated for pension purposes merely because no separate formal regularisation order had been issued. Relying on Clause 154(a) of the P&T Establishment Manual and earlier authority, CAT deemed the service regular for pensionary purposes and awarded retiral benefits with 6% interest.
Useful CAT precedent against form-over-substance pension denials, especially where continuous service, temporary status, increments, GPF, LTC or other regular-service incidents were granted for decades.
The three most useful propositions this week are: (i) Sunny Thomas for disability-pension presumptions and attacking unreasoned NANA decisions; (ii) S.S. Das for FR 56(j), arbitrary premature retirement and contradictions between recent promotion/APARs and “dead wood” findings; and (iii) the Major General MSP implementation for senior-junior pension anomalies and enforcement of AFT orders.
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.