Thursday, 19 March 2015

SC: Pension can’t be less than 50% of pay

 R Sedhuraman, Legal Correspondent, The Tribune, New Delhi, March 17
In a bonanza to retired employees of the armed forces, the Supreme Court today directed the Centre to pay at least 50 per cent of the pay as pension to all of them as recommended by the 6th Central Pay Commission(CPC).
A Bench headed by Justice TS Thakur passed the order while dismissing about 50 appeals filed by the Centre challenging the rulings of various high courts and armed forces tribunals (AFTs). The HCs and AFTs had struck down the office memorandums (OMs) assessing the pension amount at less than 50 per cent for some categories of pensioners.

Appearing for the Centre, Additional Solicitor General Pinky Anand had pleaded that payment of pension at 50 per cent or more would place an additional burden of Rs 1,500 crore. But the Bench said the pensioners were entitled to the CPC recommendations which had been accepted by the government.
They could not be denied of their dues just because some officials, who did not even have the authority to issue the OMs, had misinterpreted the recommendations, the Bench explained.
“We have already affirmed the orders of the HCs and AFTs” in a couple of cases earlier and there was no need for the Centre to come to the SC in each and every such case, the Bench said.
Today’s order should be implemented within four months extending the benefit to all those who were entitled to pension, irrespective of the fact whether they had gone to the AFT/court or not, the Bench clarified.

In one such case, the Delhi High Court had delivered its verdict on April 29, 2013, directing the Centre to ensure that pension was re-fixed at not lower than 50 per cent of the minimum of the pay in the band and the grade pay thereon. Arrears should be paid within two months and any delay would entail 9 per cent interest, it had ruled while dismissing a batch of Centre’s petitions. The HC had said it was in complete agreement with the reasoning of the Punjab and Haryana HC in similar cases.


  1. It is very much delightful to know all department except politicians are in favour of soldiers in the matter of pension. They are immune to contempt of court order for non-compliance of court order. let us wait and see what the govt is doing

  2. Very good decision by the SC. Hopes the centre will implement the order within stipulated period of four months.

  3. Does it mean that, the Pension will again be refixed wef 01 Jan 2006 based on 50% of Basic plus grade pay plus MSP, without doing the fitment factor which was factored in the last fixation where some one with 22 yrs service (with weightage of 5) got only 82% (27/33) of what was due?

    Please clarify on what has been asked. Thank you.

  4. there was also a case of full pension for 20 yrs or more ( instead of 33 yrs ). pl clarify if this is also thro'

    1. The case NO SLP 6567/2015 has been dismissed by sc on 20.02/2015 & Mr.Inasu has been allowed Full pension after 20years.

  5. some exemplary punishment should also follow in respect of all those who were involved in not implementing Cabinet Decision and Court Orders in time, harassment of pensioners in their old age by subjecting them to the agonies/ huge expenses / long delays of avoidable litigations.

  6. my pension was fied at 82% of the minimum of PB-4 since my qualifying service was 27 yrs incl of weightage. pls clarify that it will be now at 50% of mini of band +msp +RANKPAY +GRADEPAY

  7. A useful update. But the report carried by The Tribune is somewhat erroneous in implying that the judgment was only for pensioners of armed forces. The case also related to civilian pensioners.

    Secondly, the case centered on the date of implementation of previous orders on correct level of pension. The Govt had made it applicable from Sep 2012 whereas the correct pension needs to be paid from 01 Jan 2006 as now ruled but not reported on by the newspaper.

    This is a most opportune time for all concerned to be updated regularly on these matters as OROP is expected to reach some sort of implementation stage in the near future. With such old anomalies getting resolved one by one, there is a need to focus on means to remove existing anomalies that could affect OROP parities, especially the one issue concerning parity for ranks attained in the past and those obtainable at present. http://bit.ly/1xrjLoj

  8. Dear mr.menon, Following this land mark judgement of the sc allowing full pension for 20 yrs(the case of Inasu), is it not binding on the Govt. to allow the same benefit to all similar cases of the pre2006? Menon sif, please clarify

  9. Dear menonji, - pl.clarify what will be the fate of the case of full pension for 20 yrs the judgement of which is reserved in PB CAT a few days back? Because now as you say the sc has allowed full pension for such case(as in Inasu case). Please give your valuable comments in the light of the 3 SLPs dismissed by SC too?

  10. The above question remains unanswered. Some wise guy,please take it on.

  11. Sir, I Avtar Singh retired from Army Corps of Signals on 01/09/2006 as Hony Lt in active service and my pension was fixed Rs 13500/- pm from my date of retirement. The same was revised to Rs 15465/- pm wef 24/09/2012 due to some anomaly noticed in 6th pay commission. However, Supreme Court in its verdict ruled that the anomaly notices at later date in 6th pay commission to be paid from 01/01/2006 on case filed by pre 01/01/2006 retirees. The same has been implemented for the pre 01/01/2006 and post 01/01/2006 retirees have been left in lurk. On approaching PCDA pension Allahabad they replied that they have received the instructions to pay the arrears to pre 01/01/2006 retirees and no instruction have been received for post 01/01/2006 which is an injustice to post 10/01/2006 retirees and now created an anomaly for post 01/01/2006 retirees. Post 01/01/2006 retirees are also entitled for revision of their pension from their date of retirement to 23/09/2016 as the Supreme Court ruled in its verdict that arrears to be paid to all. Govt should pay attention to resolve this problem to avoid rushing the post 01/01/2006 to The Court to get justice done to them.