Chandigarh: The Supreme Court (SC) has issued notice to the Central govt and military authorities on a petition filed by two disabled ex-servicemen (ESM) alleging years of non-compliance with binding orders for disability pensions. The veterans raised serious questions about the enforcement of judicial decisions and the systemic challenges facing those who served.The petition highlights a broader institutional crisis. During related proceedings before the Punjab and Haryana high court, defence authorities reportedly disclosed that over 3,200 execution cases arising from Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) orders remain pending. The petitioners argue that this indicates widespread administrative apathy toward tribunal rulings.
Petitioners Jarnail Singh and Jasbir Singh, both 66-year-old Army veterans from Punjab, claim that despite the AFT Chandigarh bench ruling in their favour in 2019 and 2021, they have been denied their lawful dues for over five years. The medical conditions at the heart of their claims were incurred during their military service. The veterans have been forced into a cycle of prolonged litigation—including execution applications, writ petitions, and contempt proceedings—none of which have yielded relief. The petition painted a grim picture of systemic delay. Execution applications filed under Section 29 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, remained pending for years, despite repeated judicial directions mandating time-bound disposal. The petitioners cited Supreme Court judgments, including Bhoj Raj Garg versus Goyal Education and Welfare Society (2022) and Periyammal versus Rajamani (2025), which clearly stated that execution proceedings must ordinarily be decided within six months. The counsel for the petitioners, Rajesh Sehgal, stated that the apex court was informed that, in one instance, the high court in Aug 2024 directed the AFT to dispose of the execution applications within four months. When that deadline passed without compliance, contempt petitions were filed, only for the matter to be adjourned again, with fresh dates stretching into late 2025 and early 2026. Calling the situation “a denial of justice in slow motion”, the petitioners argued that the lack of contempt powers with the AFT emboldened authorities to delay compliance by routinely filing appeals and review petitions, often long after statutory deadlines expired. “The question is whether a disabled soldier will ever live to see the benefit of a court order passed in his favour,” the petition stated, warning that continued delays risk rendering judicial victories meaningless for ageing veterans. The petitioners urged the SC to issue mandatory directions for immediate implementation of the AFT orders, along with interest, costs, and exemplary damages for wilful and prolonged defiance. MSID:: 127818300 413 |
