Case Name: Wg Cdr A U Tayyaba (retd) & Ors vs. Union of India & Ors
Case Number: Miscellaneous Application No. [number] of 2024 (Diary No. 8208 of 2024) in Civil Appeal Nos. 79-82 of 2012
Dated On: The order is dated April 15, 2024.
Quorum: The hearing was attended by three judges:
- HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA
- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA
FACTS OF THE CASE
The case involves a group of women Short Service Commissioned Officers (SSCOs) in the Indian Armed Forces, including Wg Cdr A U Tayyaba (retd) and others. These officers were released from service after completing fourteen years, without receiving pensionary benefits that are typically granted upon completing twenty years of service. Following a Supreme Court judgment on November 16, 2022, which directed that these women SSCOs be considered for one-time pensionary benefits as if they had completed twenty years of service, the appellants found that the authorities had calculated their pensions based on the last salary drawn at the time of their release. This calculation did not include the notional increments they would have received had they served the full twenty years. The appellants filed a Miscellaneous Application, arguing that the authorities had misinterpreted the Court’s judgment. They sought clarification and correction of the pension calculations to include these notional increments, ensuring their pensions were computed based on the salary they would have drawn at the deemed completion of twenty years of service. They also sought clarification on the computation of the commuted value of their pension, encashment of annual leave, and entitlement to Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS) benefits.
ISSUES
- Whether the authorities correctly interpreted the Supreme Court’s judgment from November 16, 2022, in calculating the pensionary benefits for the women SSCOs. Specifically, the issue is whether the pension should include notional increments from the date of their release to the deemed completion of twenty years of service.
- How to accurately compute the commuted value of the pension, including determining the appropriate commutation factor based on the deemed completion date of twenty years of service. This involves ensuring the commutation factor used reflects the status as if the officers had completed the full twenty years.
- Whether the women SSCOs are entitled to ECHS benefits as retired officers. This issue involves clarifying their eligibility for these health benefits post-retirement based on their deemed completion of the required service period.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- The Indian Army Act, 1950: This act governs the terms and conditions of service for personnel in the Indian Army, including provisions related to retirement, pension, and other benefits.
- Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961: These regulations outline the eligibility criteria and computation methods for pension and retirement benefits for army personnel, including SSCOs. Key provisions include the minimum qualifying service required for pension eligibility and the calculation of pensionary benefits.
- The Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972: Although primarily applicable to civilian employees of the government, these rules provide guidelines that are sometimes referenced for military personnel regarding the computation of pension and related benefits.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
The appellants argue that the authorities have misinterpreted the Supreme Court’s judgment from November 16, 2022. They contend that the pension calculations were erroneously based on the last drawn salary at the time of their release, without considering notional increments between the release date and the deemed completion of twenty years of service. The appellants assert that their pensions should be computed based on the salary they would have earned at the deemed completion of twenty years of service. They argue that since they are considered to have completed the minimum qualifying service for pension, notional increments should be included to accurately reflect their entitlement to pensionary benefits. Additionally, the appellants raise concerns regarding the calculation of the commuted value of their pension. They argue that the commutation factor should be determined based on the date of the deemed completion of twenty years of service, ensuring that the commuted value reflects their full service period. The appellants seek clarification on the encashment of annual leave, particularly whether they are entitled to encash any remaining balance of accumulated leave up to the maximum allowable limit of 300 days. Finally, the appellants assert their entitlement to Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS) benefits as retired officers. They contend that their retirement status, as determined by the deemed completion of twenty years of service, qualifies them for these health benefits. Overall, the appellants’ contentions revolve around ensuring that their pensionary benefits are accurately computed and that they receive all entitlements owed to them based on their service in the armed forces.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent contends that the authorities have correctly interpreted the Supreme Court’s judgment from November 16, 2022. They argue that the pension calculations were appropriately based on the last drawn salary at the time of the appellants’ release, in accordance with the directions provided in the judgment. The respondent asserts that the pension calculations were carried out in compliance with the relevant pension regulations for the armed forces. They argue that the regulations stipulate the criteria and methods for computing pensionary benefits, including the consideration of the last drawn salary. Additionally, the respondent emphasizes that while the appellants may be considered to have completed the minimum qualifying service for pension, there are limitations on the entitlements they are eligible to receive. They highlight that the Supreme Court’s judgment explicitly stated that the officers would not be entitled to any arrears of salary, but only arrears of pension with effect from the deemed completion of twenty years of service. Regarding the computation of the commuted value of the pension, the respondent argues that the calculations were performed in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations. They assert that the commutation factor used was appropriate and based on the relevant guidelines at the time of calculation. The respondent maintains that any issues related to the encashment of annual leave and entitlement to ECHS benefits are being addressed in accordance with the applicable administrative procedures and guidelines. They contend that the appellants’ claims for these benefits should be assessed based on the relevant regulations and instructions governing such matters. Overall, the respondent’s contentions focus on defending the correctness of the pension calculations and asserting that the actions taken were in compliance with the applicable laws, regulations, and court directives. They emphasize the limitations on entitlements and seek to address any remaining issues through appropriate administrative procedures.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The Court begins its analysis by reiterating the directions issued in its judgment dated November 16, 2022. It emphasizes that the key directive was for all women Short Service Commissioned Officers (SSCOs) governed by the batch of cases to be considered for one-time pensionary benefits as if they had completed the minimum qualifying service required for pension, which is twenty years. The Court evaluates the implementation of its directions by the Union government and finds discrepancies in the computation of pensionary benefits. It notes that the authorities calculated the pensions based on the last drawn salary at the time of the appellants’ release, without including notional increments for the period between release and the deemed completion of twenty years of service.
The Court clarifies that pensionary payments should indeed be computed based on the salary at the deemed completion of twenty years of service. It emphasizes that notional increments should be included for the period between release and the deemed completion date, in accordance with the directive to consider the officers as having completed the minimum qualifying service for pension. The Court addresses the grievances raised by the appellants, including the computation of the commuted value of the pension and the encashment of annual leave. It directs that the commuted value should be calculated as of the deemed completion date of twenty years of service, and any remaining encashable leave should be computed and paid accordingly.
Regarding the entitlement to Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS) benefits, the Court affirms that the women SSCOs are entitled to these benefits as retired officers. The Court orders the correction of the PPOs to accurately reflect the status of the appellants and ensure future pension revisions. It directs that the PPOs should be corrected before a specified deadline. Based on the above analysis and directions, the Court disposes of the Miscellaneous Application, resolving the grievances of the appellants and providing clarity on the computation of pensionary benefits and entitlements.
In conclusion, the Court’s judgment provides a comprehensive analysis of the issues raised, clarifies the correct application of its directions, and issues appropriate directives to ensure the accurate computation of pensionary benefits and entitlements for the women SSCOs involved in the case.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by- Shruti Gattani
