Supreme Court Cases on X Group Pay (₹6200) – Complete Update .

 Supreme Court Cases on X Group Pay (₹6200) – Complete Update 

At the very outset, let us reassure you that the issue of denial of full X Group Pay of ₹6200 to Pre-2016 Veterans under OROP-2 and OROP-3 is already before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a consolidated and well-represented manner. There should be no confusion or ambiguity – our case is strong, progressing, and fully covered through one Lead Petition and three Tagged Petitions.

Detailed List of Cases:

1️⃣ WP(C) 796/2023 – Sushil Kumar Choudhary & Others
- This is the Lead Petition, challenging Table Nos. 7 & 8 of OROP-2 and OROP-3.
- The petition argues that the denial of full X Group Pay of ₹6200 to Pre-2016 Veterans is arbitrary, discriminatory, and against the Cabinet Resolutions, MoD orders, and settled principles of pension parity.

2️⃣ WP(C) 1324/2023 – Technical Air Veterans Welfare Association (TAVWA)
- This is the 1st Tagged Petition, and it deserves special attention.
- Filed by the Technical Air Veterans Welfare Association, this case strongly reinforces the technical cadre’s rightful claim to X Pay of ₹6200.
- What makes this petition especially significant is that it is based on Cabinet approval and binding letters/circulars issued by the Ministry of Defence itself, which clearly recognized the entitlement of X Group Veterans to the enhanced pay of ₹6200.
- The petition therefore demonstrates that the denial under OROP-2 and OROP-3 is not only unjust and discriminatory, but also in direct violation of the Government’s own decisions and policy documents.
- Its importance lies in the fact that it represents the broad technical community, ensuring that the issue is not seen as isolated to one arm of the forces, but as a common grievance across services.

3️⃣ WP(C) 126/2024 – Welfare Association of Retired Mechanics of Indian Navy (WARMIN)
- This is the 2nd Tagged Petition, filed on behalf of Retired Naval Mechanics.
- It reinforces the claim that the OROP tables (7 & 8) violate equality by granting X Group Pay selectively.

4️⃣ WP(C) 391/2025 – Veterans Indian Navy Direct Entry Artificers
- This is the 3rd Tagged Petition, filed by Direct Entry Naval Artificers.
- Recently tagged with the above matters, it awaits compliance and is part of the same bunch of cases.

Core Issue Before the Court

All these petitions challenge the illegal bifurcation and denial of X Group Pay (₹6200) to Pre-2016 X Group Veterans, whereas Post-2016 personnel are given full benefit.
- The grievance is that such denial is discriminatory, violates the principle of 'equal pension for equal rank and equal length of service', and disregards earlier Cabinet decisions and Supreme Court judgments (Nakara, Balbir Singh Turn, etc.).

Current Status

- The Lead Case (WP(C) 796/2023) and the Tagged Petitions are being heard together.
- Among the tagged cases, the TAVWA Petition (Tagged Case-1) carries exceptional weight because it is grounded not only in legal parity but also in Cabinet approval and MoD’s own circulars, which makes it particularly difficult for the Government to contest.
- Once compliance of the recently tagged petitions is completed, the entire bunch will be listed before the CJI’s Court for substantive hearing and final adjudication.

Message to Technical Air veteran Welfare Association Members

Dear Veterans, please note that our cause is fully represented in the Supreme Court through the above four petitions. There should be no confusion or doubt. All petitions are moving together under the lead case of Sushil Kumar Choudhary & Others.
The outcome of these petitions will decide the entitlement of Pre-2016 X Group Veterans to full X Pay of ₹6200, ensuring justice and parity.
We request members to remain patient, united, and vigilant, as this is a matter of national importance for all Ex-Servicemen of Technical Categories across the three Services.

DNA Test Establishes Lineage Beyond Doubt: MoD Letters (05.09.2017 & 17.10.2018) and PCDA Circular 608 (26.10.2018) as Legitimate Descendants of the 7th CPC

Unlawful Segregation of Pensioners by Pre-2016 & Post-2016 Classification under OROP-II & III: A Breach of Article 14

Unlawful Invention and Arbitrary Application of the ‘Varying Benefits’ Doctrine by DESW/MoD

 GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE – ILLEGAL CREATION AND MISUSE OF THE “VARYING BENEFITS” CONCEPT BY DESW/MoD

[Ground A] – Scope of the “Varying Benefit” Principle

1. The term “Varying Benefit” refers to pay, allowances, or service-related advantages granted only to those personnel who fulfill specific eligibility conditions prescribed by competent authority under statutory rules or valid policy decisions.
2. Such variation is legally permissible only when supported by statutory provisions, constitutional authority, or Cabinet-approved policy decisions. It cannot be artificially created by administrative instructions or during implementation in a manner that contravenes the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.

[Ground B] – Instances of Legitimate “Varying Benefits” in the Defence Forces

B.1 – Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP)

3. MACP is a compensatory measure for personnel who have qualified for promotion but could not be promoted due to lack of vacancies. It is granted after completion of 8, 16, and 24 years of service (MACP I, II, III respectively).
4. This applies to all PBOR who meet eligibility criteria, resulting in natural differentiation between personnel of the same rank and service length. This differentiation is lawful as it is explicitly sanctioned by policy and applicable rules.

B.2 – X Group Pay under the 6th CPC

5. Under the 6th CPC, an X Group Pay of ₹1,400 per month was authorised exclusively for X Group trades.
6. Y Group personnel of the same rank and service length were not entitled to this pay element, as it was reserved for a specific technical group. This was a lawful “varying benefit” backed by statutory orders.

B.3 – X Group Pay under the 7th CPC

7. The 7th CPC replaced the uniform ₹1,400 X Group Pay with two levels:
- ₹6,200 for AICTE Diploma-equivalent trades.
- ₹3,600 for Non-Diploma equivalent trades.
8. This bifurcation was effected through the MoD Gazette Resolution dated 05.09.2016, issued under Article 309 of the Constitution, and therefore carried full statutory authority.
9. This variation is lawful; however, all personnel within the higher X Group category (₹6,200) remain a homogeneous class for all further pay fixation purposes.

[Ground C] – Arbitrary and Illegal Creation of “Varying Benefit” under OROP Implementation

C.1 – Unauthorised Bifurcation by Cut-Off Date

10. In implementing OROP-II (PCDA Circular No. 666 dated 20.01.2023) and OROP-III (PCDA Circular No. 677 dated 06.09.2024), the DESW and PCDA illegally subdivided the higher X Group category (₹6,200) into two classes:
- Pre-2016 retirees.
- Post-2016 retirees.
11. This was done solely on the basis of an arbitrary cut-off date, without any statutory authority or Cabinet-approved policy decision.

C.2 – Violation of Equality and “Class within Class” Doctrine

12. The Supreme Court has consistently held (D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130; Union of India v. SPS Vains, (2008) 9 SCC 125; State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148) that it is impermissible to create artificial sub-classifications within a homogeneous group of pensioners having the same rank, length of service, and qualification.
13. Pre- and Post-2016 higher X Group veterans are identically placed in all relevant aspects. The creation of separate pension tables (Tables 7 & 8 in OROP-II/III) introduces an unlawful “class within a class”, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

C.3 – Analogy of Colourable Exercise of Power

14. The act of inserting an arbitrary variation within an otherwise lawful benefit is akin to using illicit funds to construct a temple and then claiming sanctity under the name of God — a colourable exercise of power to disguise illegality as lawful action.

[Ground D] – Overreach by DESW in Policy Matters Reserved for CPC/MoD

15. The fixation of pay structures and pension entitlements is a policy function within the authority of the Central Pay Commission (CPC) and Cabinet decisions notified through statutory Gazette Resolutions.
16. The DESW, in implementing OROP, exceeded its administrative role by altering the scope of X Group Pay through unauthorised bifurcation, thereby usurping the policy-making function.
17. This overreach was further perpetuated by DESW’s circulation of pre-drafted “standard replies” to subordinate formations, giving the false impression that the cut-off date classification was lawful and final.

[Ground E] – Constitutional and Legal Consequences

18. The creation of arbitrary “varying benefits” within the higher X Group category lacks statutory foundation and violates the equality mandate of Articles 14 and 16.
19. It is therefore liable to be struck down as unconstitutional and ultra vires, restoring a uniform pension entitlement for all higher X Group veterans regardless of date of retirement.

The Rise, Evolution, and Eclipse of X Group Pay — A Chronological Account of Varying Benefits and Discrimination

 Chronological Evolution of X Group Pay as a Varying Benefit and the Discrimination in OROP Implementation

1. Introduction of X Group Pay under 6th CPC (2006 onwards)

With the implementation of the 6th Central Pay Commission (6th CPC), an X Group Pay of ₹1,400 per month was legally and statutorily sanctioned for all Personnel Below Officer Rank (PBOR) of the Defence Forces belonging to the X Group.
- This was a varying benefit compared to Y Group PBOR, who did not receive X Group Pay.
- Due to this statutory distinction, “same pension for the same rank with the same length of service” between X and Y Group personnel was not legally possible under the One Rank One Pension (OROP) scheme, as the X Group Pay formed an integral, variable component of pension.

2. Enhancement and Bifurcation under 7th CPC (2016 onwards)

The 7th Central Pay Commission further enhanced and bifurcated the X Group Pay introduced under the 6th CPC:
- ₹6,200 per month for X Group PBOR holding an AICTE-recognised or equivalent diploma.
- ₹3,600 per month for X Group PBOR without an AICTE-equivalent diploma.

This bifurcation arose because certain non-technical trades, such as GARUD in the Indian Air Force, were included under the X Group category.
The Air Headquarters (Air HQ) and Air Force Record Office (AFRO) issued the necessary statutory orders implementing this distinction based on qualification.
- This marked the second legal creation of a varying benefit within the X Group itself.
- Due to this legal separation, Lower X Group (₹3,600) personnel cannot claim parity in pension with Higher X Group (₹6,200) personnel of the same rank and service length, as the varying benefit is qualification-based.

3. Homogeneity of Higher X Group Post-7th CPC

After the 7th CPC, all Higher X Group personnel receiving ₹6,200 X Group Pay formed a homogeneous class distinct from:
- Lower X Group (₹3,600 X Pay), and
- All Y Group personnel (no X Pay entitlement).

In this framework, pension parity between these distinct groups was not feasible under OROP, as the legally sanctioned varying benefit continued to apply.

4. Arbitrary Division in OROP-2 (Post-2016 vs. Pre-2016)

With the implementation of OROP-2 after the 7th CPC, the homogeneous Higher X Group (₹6,200) was arbitrarily divided again:
- Post-2016 retirees continued to receive Higher X Group Pay (₹6,200) for pension fixation.
- Pre-2016 retirees—despite holding the same AICTE-equivalent diploma qualifications—were downgraded to the Lower X Group Pay (₹3,600) category for pension purposes.

This third illegal & Arbitrary split in X Group Pay was:
- Not based on qualification, but solely on date of retirement,
- In violation of the 7th CPC recommendations and the Union Cabinet’s approval, which recognised qualification—not retirement date—as the basis for X Pay entitlement.

This has:
- Financially discriminated against Pre-2016 AICTE-qualified X Group veterans.
- Degraded their hard-earned diploma qualifications, obtained after rigorous training and passing centralised technical examinations in AICTE-approved institutes of the IAF.

Summary

From the 6th CPC to OROP-2, X Group Pay has evolved as a legally recognised varying benefit, but the OROP-2 implementation has created an unlawful “class within a class” among AICTE-qualified veterans, violating the principles of equality, non-discrimination, and Cabinet-approved pay structures.

Timeline of X Group Pay Evolution

Year / Event	Details
2006 (6th CPC)	Introduction of ₹1,400 X Group Pay – legally sanctioned as varying benefit for X Group PBOR.
2016 (7th CPC)	Enhancement & bifurcation: ₹6,200 for AICTE-qualified; ₹3,600 for non-AICTE-qualified.
2016 onwards	Higher X Group forms homogeneous class distinct from Lower X Group & Y Group.
2023 (OROP-2)	Arbitrary split: Pre-2016 downgraded to ₹3,600 despite same qualifications.

 

The Life Story of X Group Pay – An Insight into the Trials, Triumphs, and Tragedies Across Its Journey

 The Life Story of X Group Pay

---

Birth and Purpose
I was born in the proud family of the Indian Air Force on a symbolic day — the day my creators decided that technical skill and dedication needed a special recognition. My parents, the Government of India and the Air Force leadership, gave me a name: ‘X Group Pay’. My purpose was clear — to honour the men who worked tirelessly to ensure the airworthiness of every aircraft, day and night.

---

Childhood and Standards
In my childhood, I was nurtured with high standards. Only those with an AICTE-recognized Diploma in Engineering or its equivalent obtained after rigorous training and passing a centralised technical examination including Theory, Practical, and Viva could claim me. I became a badge of excellence, tied to the most skilled technical trades who worked with precision on the complex machinery of advanced fighter jets, weapon systems, and ground support equipment.

---

Glory Days in Service
As I grew, I witnessed my family — the X Group Airmen — serving with unmatched dedication. I stood with them during the wars of 1965 and 1971, through the tense days of the Kargil conflict in 1999, and in countless humanitarian aids during natural calamities. My name was respected, my value undisputed, and my purpose unquestioned.

---

Troubled Times
But life is not without trials. One day, dark clouds gathered. The 6th and 7th Central Pay Commissions also respected me with honors but my uncle (DESW) who was the custodian made an unequal division of my ancestral Property which created a most painful moment — my house was divided. Veterans who retired before a certain date were treated differently from those who came after, even though their qualifications and duties were exactly the same. I watched my own family split apart by an arbitrary line of control.

---

Loss of Recognition
As if that were not enough, the very qualification I represented — the AICTE Diploma equivalence earned through rigorous Air Force training — was questioned. My pride was bruised, my worth lowered, and many of my people felt their lifelong service had been diminished in the eyes of the very system they had served.

---

The Fight for Dignity
Yet, my story does not end here. My people have not abandoned me. They are fighting — in courts, through petitions, and in representations to the Ministry of Defence — to restore my dignity. They know my existence is not merely about a financial allowance; it is about respect, recognition, and the honour of those who kept our nation’s aircraft flying safely.

---

The Hope
I am X Group Pay — born from respect, raised in service, tested by adversity, and still standing with the hope that my family will one day be reunited, and my honour fully restored.

 

SPEAKING ORDERS FOR ELIGIBILITY OF X PAY RS. 6200 TO PRE-2016 RETIRED X GROUP VETERANS

  Sequence of events Leading to issuance of 7^th CPC Circulars Authorising  X Group Pay 6200  to Pre-2016 X Group Retirees.

1) Recommendations by the 7th CPC vide Paras 6.2.87 and 6.2.88 regarding the revision of pension for pre-2016 retirees.CLICK

2) Government of India ,Ministry of defence Gazette Notification of Resolution No.1(7)/2016/D(Pay/Services)05/09/2016 vide Gazette SL No 02 Part 1 Section 3 dated 05/09/2016 in its Page 13 Annexure-1 Para 4(a) & Para (b)  approving the 7th CPC recommendations by the Union Government Pertaining to Group X Pay of Rs. 6200 & 3600 on the Basis of their Diploma Equvalency.CLICK

3) Air Headquarters, through Letter No. AIR HQ/99141/1/AFPCC dated 08/05/2017 Segregated the X Group trades for the Allocation of  higher & lower X Group pay of  6200 & 3600 Respectively as per Page 13 Annexute-1, Para 4 (a) & Para 4(b) oft the above Gazette Notification of  Resolution dated 05/09/2016 on the Basis of their Diploma Equivalency.CLICK

4) GOI.MOD Letter No. 17(01)/2017/(02)/D(Pension/Policy) dated 05/09/2017 for revision of pension of Pre-2016 Retirees in compliance with the Gazette Notification dated 05/09/2016.CLICK

5) PCDA Circular No. 585 dated 21/09/2017 in compliance with MOD letter dated 05/09/2017 for revision of pension of Pre-2016 Retirees.CLICK

6) MOD Letter No. 17(01)/2017/(02)/D(Pension/Policy) dated 17/10/2018 regarding notional pay fixation of pre-2016 retirees using concordance table.CLICK

7) PCDA Circular No. 608 dated 26/10/2018 containing concordance table for notional fixation of pension of Pre-2016 Retirees in compliance with MOD letter dated 17/10/2018.CLICK

 JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS

 In D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (1983), the Hon’ble Court held that: 

“a homogeneous class of pensioners cannot be fractured by an arbitrary cut-off.”

 In Col. B.J. Akkara v. Govt. of India (2006) 11 SCC 709, it was held:

“... computation of pension cannot apply unequal treatment merely by date of retirement. Enhanced benefits by subsequent amendment must uniformly apply to the class.”

 In Union of India v. Balbir Singh Turn (CA Diary No. 3744/2016), the Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled:

“A Cabinet/ Executive decision cannot be modified by an Administrative instruction. Any administrative instruction contrary to a Cabinet/Executive Resolution is ultra vires.”

Copy of Full Judgements 

1) D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (1983)

2) Col. B.J. Akkara v. Govt. of India (2006) 11 SCC 709

3) Union of India v. Balbir Singh Turn (CA Diary No. 3744/2016)

Following Administrative Orders issued in contravention of Government Decisions constitute an act of indiscipline, erode their own credibility and competence, and inevitably invite judicial rebuff.

1) Grossly Irresponsible and Discriminatory Advice Issued by DESW to CGDA Vide Para (b) Clarification on Page 2 Dated 08/04/2022, in Response to the Patently Frivolous and Baseless Clarifications Sought by CGDA Vide Their Letter Dated 22/03/2022. 

2) Discriminatory Administrative Orders Issued by DESW Dated 18/05/2023 in furtherance of their Ill-Conceived and arbitrary advice to CGDA Dated 18/04/2022

Air Headquarters Demonstrates Discipline, Courage and Adherence to Government Policy by Urging DESW to Reconsider Its Stand on the Eligibility of X Group Pay..

1) Air Headquarters, through Letter No. AIR HQ/99141/1/AFPCC dated 08/05/2017 Segregated the X Group trades for the Allocation of  higher & lower X Group pay of  6200 & 3600 Respectively as per Page 13 Annexute-1, Para 4 (a) & Para 4(b) oft the above Gazette Notification of  Resolution dated 05/09/2016 on the Basis of their Diploma Equivalency.

2) Air Head Quarters Letter to DESW to Re-consider X Pay of Rs.6200 to Pre-2016 X Group Veterans as per Govt Orders 

Consistent and Unambiguous Stand Taken by JCDA (AF), AFRO, and DAV — the Competent and Statutory Authorities Overseeing the Fixation of Pension for Air Veterans through the Issuance of PPOs, in Strict Adherence to Government Orders.

1) JCDA (AF) has authorised Pre-2016 Xgroup Air Veterans X Group Pay of Rs. 62OO by issue of EPPO, as Per PCDA Circular 608 dated 26/10/2018

2)JCDA (AF) has Revised the Pension of all Pre-2016 Air Veterans on the Basis of MOD Letter dated 17/10/2018 & PCDA Circular 608 dated 26/10/2018

Compiled by MBC Menon.