Ex Sub Kasam Ali vs UOI & Others on 4 November 2025

ORDER

04.11.2025 Respondents

1. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has prayed for directing the Respondents to re-fix Service Pension of the Applicant @ Rs. 12,660/- pm wef 01.07.2014 and Rs. 32,536/- pm wef 01.01.2016 along with consequentíal benefits and that the arrears be paid along with interest and suitable compensation. The brief facts of the case as enunciated by the Applicant are that the Applicant was enrolled in the Indian Army on 22.12.1970 and after rendering more than 28 years of service, he was discharged from Service on 31.12.1998 on completion of terms of engagement. The Applicant was granted Service Pension @ Rs. 4660/- pm for life wef 01.01.1999 which was revised to Rs. 12,268/- pm wef 01.07.2014 (as per OROP-1 scale) and on implementation of 7th CPC, Service Pension was revised to Rs. 31,529/- pm wef 01.01.2016 (12,268x2.57 = Rs. 31,529/-). The Applicant submits that on implementation of OROP, the similarly placed personnel of Territorial Army with same rank and length of service/group, are granted higher Basic Pension @Rs. 32,536/- pm as per Table No 9 as that of Army personnel @ Rs. 31,529/- pm as per Table No 9 to Govt of India, Ministry of Defence letter No 12(1)/2014/D/Pen/ Policy/ Part-II dt 03.02.2016, which comes to Rs. 1007/- higher than the pension of the Applicant. The Applicant has contested that grant of lower pension to the Applicant than his counterparts of Territorial Army is unreasonable, arbitrary, unconstitutional and equity and against the principles of "Equal Pay for Equal Work". In support of his claim, the Applicant has placed reliance on judgment dt 12.05.2023 of Hon'ble AFT (RB), Chandigarh in OA No 3324/2018 in the case of Bharat Singh Vs UoI & Ors and judgment dt 16.03.2023 in OA No 1829/2018 in the case of Shansher Singh Vs UOI & Ors. The Applicant made representations for stepping up of his pension at par with Territorial Army personnel but to no avail. Therefore, the aggrieved Applicant has filed present OA.

3. The Respondents have filed a detailed reply. While not disputing the basic facts presented by the Applicant, the Respondents have submitted that the Applicant's pension has rightly been revised in terms of Table-7 of PCDA (P) Circular No 555,dt 04.02.2016 whích is applicable to Army, Navy and Air Force personnel, whereas the Applicant is seeking for grant of Service Pension as per Table No-9 of Circular No 555, which is applicable for Territorial Army personnel. Para 5.5 of PCDA (P) Circular No 555 clearly states that "pension of TA personnel who are in recejpt of pension for TA service shall be revised based on Teritorial Army tables for JCOs/OR'. As regards aforesaid judgments of AFT (RB), Chandigarh in the cases of Bharat Singh and Shamsher Singh (Supra), the Respondents have submitted that Hon'ble AFT (RB), Chandigarh OROA has been approached for filing Leave to Appeal. In view of the aforesaid averments, the Respondents have reiterated that the OA is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

4. We have heard Learned Counsels for both the parties and perused the material placed before us.

5. It is not in dispute that the Army/Navy/Air Force and the Territorial Army are two different services which are governed by different set of rules and regulations and, accordingly, their rates of pension have also been placed in different tables upon revision.

6. In the present OA, the Applicant has submitted that his Service Pension has been revised to Rs. 31,529/- pm wef 01.01.2014, ie., on implementation of OROP, whereas perusal of PPO No 233199801109 (ePPO No 151199800975) dt 13.03.2023 (Annexure A/4), reveals that the Applicant's Basic Pension has been revised to Rs. 31,529/- pm for life wef 01.01.1999, which is not understood. In another ePPO issued on 07.05.2019 upon revision of Pension wef 01.01.2016 upon implementation of 7th CPC, the pension has been fixed @ Rs. 31,529/ (Annexure A/2). Further, the Respondents have also not clarified this issue in their Reply Statement. It cannot be imagined that the Applicant can be Further, the granted Service Pension @ Rs. 31,529/- pm wef 01.01.1999. Respondents have also not clarified whether the judgments cited by the Applicant in the cases of Bharat Singh and Shamsher Singh (Supra) have attained finality or not. Obviously, there is some error in the ePPOs issued in respect of the Applicant, which needs to be corrected so that correct pension is paid to him.

Taking note of overall facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the Army/Navy/Air Force and the Territorial Army are governed by different sets of rules and regulations, we remand back the matter to the Respondents with direction to reconsider the same matter in the light of extant rules/ regulations/ policies within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order and the outcome thereof be intimated to the Applicant., As regards the case of Bharat ^ingh (supra), it has been seen that it was ordered that the matter may be reconsidered by the Respondents and no specific order had been passed.

8. The OA is disposed off, accordingly.

9. Application(s), if any, also stand disposed off. No order on costs. (SANJIV MITTAL) MEMBER (A) Ssy/ ORCES YRIB Pending Miscellaneous (GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER(J)