Rajasthan HC Dismisses Union of India's Challenge to AFT Order on Air Force Veteran's 5th CPC Pension Revision, Imposes Costs
The Rajasthan High Court upheld an Armed Forces Tribunal direction to revise pension of a retired Master Warrant Officer from 01.01.1996, rejecting the government's retrospectivity and delay arguments.
A Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, comprising Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Dr. Justice Nupur Bhati, on 16 June 2026 dismissed a writ petition filed by the Union of India and associated Air Force authorities challenging two orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal. The Tribunal had directed recalculation of pension for No. 610812A Ex Master Warrant Officer Prabhu Singh Shekhawat, a retired Indian Air Force Education Instructor, on the basis of Group ‘X’ pay scales with effect from 01.01.1996. The bench, in a judgment authored by Dr. Justice Nupur Bhati, found that the government's own 2015 Ministry of Defence report had conclusively resolved the retrospectivity question against the petitioners, and that the delay argument drawn from Union of India v. Tarsem Singh was inapplicable on the facts. The petitioners were directed to pay costs of Rs. 15,000 to the respondent.
The Dispute Before the High Court
Prabhu Singh Shekhawat was enrolled in the Indian Air Force on 12.08.1970 and discharged on 31.08.1996 after 26 years and 20 days of qualifying service, in the rank of Master Warrant Officer, Group-II. He was sanctioned service pension from 01.09.1996 under the applicable Pension Payment Orders.
He subsequently claimed that the 5th Central Pay Commission had upgraded the trade of “Education Instructor” from Group-II to Group ‘X’ with effect from 01.01.1996, entitling him to revised pay, allowances, and pensionary benefits. In support, he relied on a communication dated 16.11.2015 from the Directorate of Personnel Services, Air Headquarters, obtained under the Right to Information Act.
His representations and a legal notice were rejected by the competent authorities on the ground that trade rationalisation pursuant to the Ajit Kumar Committee's recommendations had been made effective only from 10.10.1997 and carried no retrospective application. He then filed an Original Application before the Armed Forces Tribunal.
The Tribunal, vide order dated 04.09.2023, disposed of the Original Application with liberty to Shekhawat to approach the competent authorities for pay and pensionary benefits in terms of the order in OA No. 580/2012 titled Ex GDR Chhotulal & Ors. v. UOI & Ors., and permitted him to approach the Tribunal afresh if any discrepancy arose. A review application by the Union of India was dismissed on 21.11.2025. The present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenged both orders.
Two Legal Issues Framed
The bench identified two discrete issues for adjudication. The first was whether the introduction of revised pay scales under the 5th Central Pay Commission, notified on 10.10.1997, had no retrospective effect, so that personnel who retired before that date were ineligible for the revised scales and consequential pensionary benefits. The second was whether the restriction of arrears to three years prior to filing of proceedings, as laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648, applied given the alleged delay of over 21 years in filing the Original Application.
How the Bench Reasoned on Retrospectivity
On the first issue, the bench turned to the Report of the Raksha Mantri's Committee of Experts, 2015 — a Ministry of Defence document placed on record as Annexure 9 of the Original Application. Chapter II of that report dealt specifically with litigation arising from denial of revised pay scales from 1996 to 2009 to pensioners who retired before 10.10.1997.
The report stated that the fresh scales introduced with effect from 10.10.1997 were bound to take effect from 01.01.1996 as per the Gazette Notification issued by the Government of India with Cabinet approval, and that any executive instructions restricting the effect to 10.10.1997 onwards were null and void in the face of that Gazette Notification. The bench also noted that the Notification dated 10.10.1997 itself, on its face, made the revised pay scales effective from 01.01.1996.
The bench further noted that the report characterised continued litigation on this point as “unethical” and recommended withdrawal of all pending review applications, High Court petitions, and Supreme Court appeals on the subject. The report cited Supreme Court decisions in KT Veerappa v. State of Karnataka (2006) 9 SCC 406 and others for the proposition that once an anomaly is removed, it must be removed from the date of its inception with full arrears, not from an artificial future cut-off date.
The bench also referred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgment in Jai Narayan Jakhar v. Union of India & Anr. (CWP No. 15400 of 2006), decided on 14.01.2008, where a similar writ was allowed and the respondent authorities were directed to recalculate pension on the revised pay scale of Rs. 5620-140-8140 with effect from 01.01.1996. The Union of India's Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 128/2008 against that judgment was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 21.11.2008 after condoning delay.
The Rajasthan High Court observed that the petitioners were fully aware that the issue in Jai Narayan Jakhar had been put to rest by the Supreme Court in 2008, and that the facts of that case were almost identical to the present one. Despite this, the petitioners had denied Shekhawat the same treatment extended to similarly situated personnel. The bench found no plausible, cogent, or legally sustainable explanation for such differential treatment, characterising the conduct as “wholly contrary to the principles of equality, fairness, and fair play” and amounting to gross arbitrariness.
How the Bench Reasoned on Delay and Arrears
On the second issue, the petitioners argued that since the Original Application was filed after an inordinate delay of more than 21 years, arrears should be restricted to three years prior to institution of proceedings under the Tarsem Singh principle, and no interest on arrears could be granted.
The bench rejected the premise of the delay calculation. It held that the petitioners had gravely erred in computing delay from 31.08.1996, the date of Shekhawat's discharge. The anomaly in pay scales was removed only by the Report of 2015. Shekhawat therefore had no occasion to approach the Tribunal before that report came into existence, and his right to approach the Tribunal accrued from 2015. He filed his Original Application on 09.01.2017 — well within a reasonable period of the 2015 report.
The bench drew support from the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & Ors. v. SGT Girish Kumar & Ors. reported in (2026) SCC Online SC 194, decided on 12.02.2026. In that case, the Supreme Court had distinguished Tarsem Singh on the ground that the ex-servicemen were already in receipt of disability pension and were only seeking re-computation; their right to approach the Tribunal accrued only on 10.12.2014 when the three-Judge Bench decision in Union of India v. Ram Avtar reported in (2014) SCC Online SC 1761 was rendered. The Supreme Court in SGT Girish Kumar held that the bar in Section 22(1)(c) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 had no application to such claims and that the original applications did not suffer from delay or laches.
Applying the same reasoning, the Rajasthan High Court held that Tarsem Singh was inapplicable in the present case for two reasons: the right to approach the Tribunal accrued only after publication of the Report of 2015, and Shekhawat was already in receipt of pension and was seeking re-computation of pay scale upon implementation of the 5th Central Pay Commission. The bench also held that the claim pertaining to arrears of pensionary benefits constitutes a continuing wrong, giving rise to a recurring and successive cause of action with each denial or short payment, and that no third-party rights had been created so as to prejudice any party by the delay.
Outcome
The Division Bench dismissed D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5056/2026 in its entirety. The order dated 04.09.2023 of the Armed Forces Tribunal was affirmed. The order dated 21.11.2025 of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Jaipur Bench (Circuit Bench Jaipur), in Review Petition No. 13/2025 titled Union of India & Ors. v. Ex MWO Prabhu Singh Shekhawat, was also affirmed and upheld.
The stay application and all other pending applications were disposed of. Taking note of the petitioners' conduct, the bench directed them to pay costs of Rs. 15,000 to the respondent. The petitioners were further directed to ensure release of all consequential pay-scale revisions and pensionary benefits accruing to Shekhawat pursuant to implementation of the 5th Central Pay Commission within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.