Supreme Court did not follow Tarsem Singh precedent on pension arrear claims
The case involves Maya Banerjee, a widow, appealing against the Union of India regarding her entitlement to family pension arrears from the date of her husband's death in 2000, rather than from 2014 when she first approached the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Petitioner: Maya Banerjee; Respondent: Union of India & Ors.; Bench: Not specified in the text
- The Court did not follow the 'Tarsem Singh' precedent on limiting pension arrear claims.
- The Court referenced S.K. Mastan Bee case where pension was granted from the date of death, not from the date of legal notice.
- The Court noted that the High Court restricted family pension from 2014 onwards, which the appellant argued was incorrect.
- The Court observed that the principle in S.K. Mastan Bee (supra) is directly related to family pension claims by widows, unlike Tarsem Singh.
Written from the document by AI, and checked against it. The original below is authoritative.
The original document
Document details
| Official title | Know The Law | Why Supreme Court Did Not Follow 'Tarsem Singh' Precedent On Limiting Pension Arrear Claims? |
| Source body | Supreme Court of India — orders & judgments |
| Reference number | — |
| Status | closed (order) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Closing date | — |
| Documents | 1 |