A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court clarified its earlier judgment regarding pensionary benefits for women Short Service Commissioned Officers (SSCOs) in the armed forces. The Court held that notional increments must be considered for computing pensions for women SSCOs who are deemed to have completed 20 years of service for pension eligibility. It further directed that arrears of pension would be payable from the date deemed for the completion of 20 years, while arrears of salary remained excluded. Additional clarifications were provided regarding the commuted value of pensions, encashment of annual leave, and entitlement to ECHS benefits.

Keywords: Pensionary benefits, Women SSCOs, Notional increments, Arrears of pension, ECHS benefits.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title
Wg Cdr A U Tayyaba (retd) & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

ii) Case Number
Miscellaneous Application Diary No. 8208 of 2024

iii) Judgment Date
15 April 2024

iv) Court
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, CJI, J.B. Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, JJ.

vi) Author
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, CJI

vii) Citation
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 518

viii) Legal Provisions Involved

• Army Pension Regulations
• Relevant HRP Policy (dated 19 November 2010)

ix) Judgments Overruled
None

x) Case is Related to Which Law Subjects
Armed Forces Law, Pensionary Rights, Constitutional Law, Administrative Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The petitioners, retired women SSCOs, sought clarifications on the pensionary benefits granted in the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment dated 16 November 2022. The initial order allowed them to be treated as having completed the minimum qualifying service of 20 years for pension, without arrears of salary but with arrears of pension. The present application clarified issues concerning salary computation, notional increments, pension arrears, and other post-retirement benefits.

The issue emerged as women SSCOs released after 14 years of service argued for computation of their pensions on the basis of notional increments for the remaining service years until the deemed completion of 20 years.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Women SSCOs in the Indian Armed Forces are typically released after completing 14 years of service.
2. The Supreme Court’s judgment on 16 November 2022 directed that they be granted one-time pensionary benefits by deeming their service period as 20 years, required for pension eligibility.
3. The Union Government issued Pension Payment Orders (PPOs), but pensions were calculated on the last drawn salary at the time of release, excluding notional increments.
4. The petitioners argued this interpretation was incorrect, as increments for the remaining years should have been considered for pension calculations.
5. The Court’s intervention was sought to clarify the scope of pensionary benefits and address issues relating to arrears of pension, encashment of leave, and entitlement to ECHS benefits.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Should notional increments between the date of release and deemed completion of 20 years of service be considered for pension computation?
2. Are arrears of pension payable from the date of deemed completion of 20 years?
3. What is the proper method for computing the commuted value of pension?
4. Should women SSCOs be entitled to ECHS benefits and encashment of accumulated leave?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Last Drawn Salary Issue
   The petitioners argued that the computation of pensions based on the last drawn salary at the time of release was flawed. The salary at the deemed completion of 20 years, including increments for the intervening years, should be considered.

2. Arrears of Pension
   They contended that arrears of pension should be paid from the date of deemed completion of 20 years, in line with the Court’s directions in the 2022 judgment.

3. Commutation Value
   The calculation of the commuted value must align with the date of deemed completion of 20 years to ensure fairness and parity.

4. ECHS and Leave Encashment
   They sought clarity on their entitlement to ECHS benefits as retired officers and encashment for up to 300 days of leave, as permitted under armed forces policies.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Compliance with Judgment
   The respondents claimed compliance with the 2022 judgment, asserting that pensions were rightly calculated based on the last drawn salary at the time of release.

2. Notional Increments
   They argued against considering notional increments for the intervening years, citing administrative and financial challenges.

3. ECHS Benefits
   The respondents confirmed that the PPOs granted lifetime benefits but disputed the retrospective application for ECHS entitlement.

4. Clarifications on Pension Order
   They sought modifications to the PPOs to address ambiguities and ensure alignment with the judgment.

H) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

1. Notional Increments
   The Court ruled that pensions must be computed considering notional increments for the years between release and deemed completion of 20 years.

2. Arrears of Pension
   The arrears of pension are payable from the date of deemed completion of 20 years.

3. ECHS Benefits and Leave Encashment
   The Court affirmed the entitlement of women SSCOs to ECHS benefits and directed encashment of leave for up to 300 days.

4. Revised PPOs
   The Court ordered corrections in PPOs to reflect the correct retirement status and revised pension amounts.

b. Obiter Dicta

The judgment emphasized the need for gender parity and recognition of the contributions of women officers in the armed forces.

c. Guidelines

• Pension must be recalculated with notional increments factored in.
• Revised payments, including arrears, must be settled by 15 June 2024.
• PPOs should accurately reflect the officers’ retirement status and entitlement to revised pensions.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This judgment underscores the judiciary’s role in advancing gender justice within the armed forces. By addressing ambiguities and ensuring equitable treatment of women SSCOs, the Court has reinforced principles of fairness and equality.

J) REFERENCES

1. Wg Cdr A U Tayyaba (retd) & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [2024] 4 S.C.R. 518.
2. HRP Policy, 19 November 2010.
3. Relevant provisions of the Army Pension Regulations.