Armed Forces Tribunal
Ex Hav Nanu Khan (Army) vs UOI & Others on 10 September 2025
**ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, JAIPUR**
**6.
OA 256/2012**
**No 2657376K Ex Hav Nanu Khan, s/o Shri Senbaz Khan, Resident of Ward No 13, Near Noor Masjid, Churu, Rajasthan**
** .... Applicant**
**Versus**
1. **1. UOI, through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Govt of India, New Delhi – 110 011**
2. **2. The Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension), Draupadi Ghat, Prayagraj, UP – 211 014**
3. **3. The OIC, Records The Grenadiers, PIN 908 776, c/o 56 APO**
** .... Respondents**
**For Applicant**
**: Mr Yogendra Singh, Advocate**
**For Respondents**
**: Mr Brij Bihari Sharma, Advocate**
**CORAM:**
**HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, MEMBER (J)**
**HON'BLE MR. SANJIV MITTAL, MEMBER (A)**
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
**ORDER
10.09.2025**
1. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the applicant has filed this OA praying for directing the Respondents to revise the service pension of the applicant so as the same to be higher than lower rank of Naik of Group 'D' with same length of service with effect from 01/7/2009. He has also prayed that Table No 24 attached to the letter dated 08/3/2010 may be quashed and set aside being prejudice to the interest of the applicant.
2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the applicant are that the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 22/2/1966 and was discharged from service 29/6/1982 on fulfilling the conditions of his enrolment under Army Rule 13 (3) III (iv) after serving for 16 years and 128 days of service in the rank of Havildar. He 
was sanctioned service pension @Rs 165/- pm wef 30/6/1982 for life, which was revised from time to time and the last revision was made in terms of Govt of India letter dated 08/3/2010. Further, in terms of Govt of India letter dated 11/11/2008 and Circular dated 397 of the PCDA (P), pension of pre 2006 retirees were revised and thus the pension of the applicant was fixed @Rs 3670/- per month whereas the pension for the rank of Naik for 16.5 years service of the same Group D was fixed @ Rs 3576/-, and the basic pension of the applicant was Rs 94/- more than that of a Naik with same length of service and Group. Pension of pre 2006 retirees was further revised vide Govt of India, Ministry of Defence letter dated 08/3/2010 and Circular No 430 of the PCDA (P) @Rs 4938/- pm whereas the pension of the applicant in Group D Hav with 16.5 years was fixed at Rs 4923/- which is illegal, unjust, unreasonable and arbitrary. Since the applicant was receiving Rs 94/- more than that of Naik prior to the issuance of letter dated 08/3/2010 and, therefore, the applicant is at a loss of Rs 109/- pm. Aggrieved by this, the applicant sent a representation dated 07/12/2011 to the non applicants, but was of no avail. Hence, this OA praying for relief.
3. The Respondents, vide their Reply Statement, have submitted that the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 22/2/1966 and was discharged from service at his own request before completion of his terms of enrolment wef 29/6/1982 under Rule 13 (3) Item III (iv) of Army Rules 1954. He had rendered 16 years and 128 days of service and was granted service pension apart from all other admissible benefits. After implementation of 6<sup>th</sup> CPC and in terms of Govt of India, Ministry of Defence letter dated 11/11/2008, service pension of the applicant was revised @Rs 3670/- pm plus DA wef 01/1/2006 as admissible at that time. Pension of the applicant was further revised to Rs 4923/- pm plus DA wef 01/7/2009 in accordance with PCDA (P) Circular No 430 dated 10/3/2010. Respondents further submit that the applicant has been granted service pension at the applicable rates and his pension was revised from time to time in accordance with policy letters and Circulars issued by the PCDA (P). It has further been averred that the applicant has filed the subject OA against the Govt policy and not against any specific irregularity or lapse on the part of the Record Office and the OA deserves to be dismissed.
 The emblem of the Government of India, featuring the Lion Capital of Ashoka, with the motto 'Satyameva Jayate' inscribed below it.
4. We have heard the counsels for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
5. During the course of hearing, counsel for the Respondents submits that service pension of the applicant was revised vide Corrigendum PPO No ADA/REV/S/30125/84, issued in 1984, Annexure R/2. Perusal of ibid PPO reveals that the service pension of the applicant was revised to Rs 175/- from the then Rs 165/-. Contra, Counsel for the applicant submits that the Corrigendum PPO issued in 1984 placed on record by the Respondents at Annexure R/2, was not in accordance with the actual entitlement of the Applicant. Further, in response to the Representation dated 08/9/2010 submitted by the applicant, The Grenadiers Records issued a letter dated 10/1/2011, Annexure R/3, to the Treasury Office, Churu, Rajasthan from where the applicant was drawing his service pension at that time conveying the rates of pension as per the entitlement of the applicant from time to time. The Record Office lucidly stated therein the actual amount of pension applicable to the applicant wef 01/1/2006 @Rs 3670/- pm plus DA wef 01/1/2006 to 30/6/2009 and @Rs 4923/- plus DA wef 01/7/2009 in terms of PCDA (P) Circular Nos 397 dated 18/11/2008 and 430 dated 10/3/2010 respectively. The letter had also clarified the rate at which the DA was entitled to the applicant wef 01/1/2006 onwards and advised the Treasury Office to make the correct payment of pension to the applicant and pay the arrears as admissible to him. A copy of the ibid letter was also addressed to the applicant. It is thus clear that the matter  A rectangular area at the bottom left of the page that has been redacted, appearing as a solid grey block.
has already been settled by the Record Office and the Treasury Office, Churu, Rajasthan was intimated about the actual amount payable to the applicant.
6. In view of the foregoing and as the pension account of the applicant has since been migrated to SPARSH/PCDA (P) as submitted by the Counsel for the Respondents during the course of hearing, we deem it appropriate to direct the Treasury Officer, Churu, Rajasthan to issue a Non Payment Certificate, in case the actual amount as admissible to the applicant was not paid to him in accordance with the letter dated 10/1/2011 of the Record Office, The Grenadiers. SPARSH/PCDA (P) is also directed to pay the actual pension entitled to the applicant and also pay the arrears, if any, due to the applicant based on the NPC received from the Treasury Office, Churu, for any outstanding amount, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of such an NPC, failing which, the applicant shall be entitled to receive interest @6% pa till the date of its actual payment.
7. The OA is disposed off accordingly. No order on costs.
8. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed off.
(SANJIV MITTAL) MEMBER (A)
(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (J)
cda/-