Read Time: 06 minutes

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition against disparity in pensionary benefits to different armed forces.

A bench of Justices LN Rao & Ravindra Bhat allowed the petitioner to move appropriate high court in the instance case.

The petition had been moved under Article 32 by a registered trust, Humara Desh Humare Jawan, working for the cause of armed forces personnel, alleging violation of Fundamental Rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

It was the contention of the petitioner that, each and every personnel of the Armed Forces is entitled to pension under the Old Pension Scheme and that by carving out a distinction between Armed Forces under Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces under Ministry of Home Affairs, in terms of releasing pensionary benefits, the Government has failed to appreciate the fact that both are essentially the Armed Forces of the Union. Prayer is made to remove such disparity by issuing a Writ of Mandamus.

A new contributory pension scheme was launched by the Government of India which came into effect from January 1, 2004. This was not proposed for the Armed Forces of the Union. Reliance is placed upon the clarification issued on 22nd December, 2003 by the Ministry of Finance, which expressly stated, “… introducing a new restructured defined contribution pension system for new entrants to Central Government service, except to Armed Forces, in the first stage, replacing the existing system of defined benefit pension system.” Petitioners further reproduced a clarification note issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, dated 6th August, 2004 which enumerates ‘Armed Forces of the Union’ covering (i) Border Security Force (Border Security Force Act, 1968) (ii) Central Industrial Security Force (Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 (iii) Central Reserve Police Force (Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (iv) Indo Tibetan Border Police (Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force Act, 1992) (v) National Security Guard (National Security Guard Act, 1986) and also Assam Rifles and SSB as two Central Forces under Ministry of Home Affairs.

It is the case of the petitioner that since the forces which come under Ministry of Home Affairs are similar to forces covered by Ministry of Defence; Army, Navy and Airforce, there should be no discrimination between the two in securing post service benefits. Reference is drawn to the observation of Supreme Court in Sukumaran v. State of Kerala, delivered on 26.08.2020, where it was said, “Pension is succor for post-retirement period. It is not a bounty payable at will, but a social welfare measure as a post retirement entitlement to maintain the dignity of the employee.” It was further said under Para 19, “Pensionary provisions must be given a liberal construction as a social welfare measure… the very basis for grant of such pension must be kept in mind, i.e., to facilitate a retired Government employee to live dignity in his winter of life.”