Monday, 25 August 2025
Saturday, 23 August 2025
Friday, 15 August 2025
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. |
Thursday, 14 August 2025
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)