Ten ex-servicemen at EPFO cannot carry last military pay into civil posts, Telangana HC rules

A Division Bench upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal and dismissed a 2018 writ petition by ex-servicemen re-employed as Social Security Assistants, holding that ignoring their pension did not give them a right to pay protection, and that a benefit given to one colleague in 2000 created no claim to the same treatment.

Ten men who spent 18 to 20 years in the Indian Air Force and the Indian Army joined the Employees' Provident Fund Organization as Social Security Assistants, and their pay was fixed at entry level. They wanted it fixed by the last pay they drew in uniform. On 11 November 2026 the Telangana High Court refused.

A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda dismissed their writ petition, filed in 2018. The order, authored by Justice Nandikonda, was reserved on 13 July 2026 and confirms two orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench.

From the barracks to the provident fund office

The petitioners retired from the Defence Services before the age of 55, all from posts below Commissioned Officer rank. They were appointed under the ex-servicemen quota between 2006 and 2012. Petitioners Nos. 1 to 7 retired after 2006 and joined between 2010 and 2012, and Nos. 8 to 10 retired earlier and joined in 2006.

Their grievance was that initial pay on re-employment ignored the pay they last drew in service. They relied on the Central Civil Services (Fixation of Pay of Re-employed Pensioners) Orders, 1986, as amended by an Office Memorandum of 5 April 2010.

Their case was that paragraph 4(d)(i) requires the entire pension and pension equivalent of retirement benefits to be ignored, so the last pay drawn should be protected. In 2013 some communications had considered fixation on last pay certificates, but letters of 26/28 November, 10 December and 11 December 2013 then denied it.

The Tribunal and the review

The petitioners went to the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 37 of 2014. It dismissed the application on 9 January 2018 and, on 6 April 2018, dismissed their review application as a repetition of the same grounds.

In the High Court, Mr K. Sudhakar Reddy appeared for the petitioners. He pointed to G. Suryanarayana, a Lower Division Clerk in the same organisation whose pay was fixed on his last armed forces pay by an order of 3 February 2000. Denying the same to the petitioners, he said, violated Article 14.

The respondents: entry pay, nothing more

Ms P. Sarada, Standing Counsel, appeared for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The respondents said the petitioners were direct recruits under the ex-servicemen quota, and their pay was fixed strictly under the rules.

Pension is ignored, they said, but initial pay is set at the entry pay in the revised pay structure for direct recruits appointed on or after 1 January 2006.

They added that paragraph 3(v) of the 2010 memorandum applies to a different category of re-employed people. A Deputy Director (Audit) had also examined the claim and found no eligibility for protection of last pay. The organisation's Head Office issued clarifications on 26 July 2017, based on Department of Personnel and Training clarifications of 4 July and 9 November 2016.

The respondents relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Anil Prasad, decided on 20 May 2022 in Civil Appeal No. 4073 of 2022.

Pension ignored, pay not protected

The Bench framed the question this way:

“whether the petitioners, who are ex-servicemen re-employed as Social Security Assistants in the Employees' Provident Fund Organization, are entitled to fixation of their initial pay by taking into consideration the last pay drawn by them in the Defence Services” (para 15)

It was undisputed that the petitioners held posts below Commissioned Officer rank and retired before 55. The court rejected their central argument. That pension and pensionary benefits must be ignored, it held, does not automatically give a right to pay equal to the last pay drawn in the Defence Services.

Any right to pay protection, the Bench said, must flow from the applicable rules and instructions. Under the memorandum of 5 April 2010 the initial pay is fixed at the entry pay of the re-employed post, as for direct recruits on or after 1 January 2006. The provision, it found, does not contemplate protection of last pay.

The Bench therefore held that fixing pay on the strength of the Deputy Director's opinion and the organisation's clarifications of 26 July 2017 could not be called illegal or arbitrary.

What Anil Prasad did and did not decide

The court read Anil Prasad as holding that last drawn pay in the Armed Forces cannot be claimed as of right on re-employment in a civil post. Paragraph 8 of the 1986 Orders, it noted, refers to last pay only so that pay computed on re-employment does not exceed it.

The Supreme Court had set aside a Delhi High Court judgment that ordered fixation at par with the last pay.

The Bench acknowledged a difference. That decision concerned paragraph 8, which deals with Emergency Commissioned Officers and Short Service Commissioned Officers, while these petitioners held posts below that rank. It still found the principle relevant: protection of last pay cannot be claimed as of right without a specific provision, and the rules for this category provide for entry-level fixation.

One colleague's benefit, no equal claim

On G. Suryanarayana, the respondents had said his pay was fixed under the rules that applied at that time, and those rules do not apply to the petitioners. The court accepted that answer and added that the petitioners would in any case have to show an entitlement under the present rules.

Citing Article 14, the Bench said it:

“does not envisage negative equality” (para 23)

An irregularity in one case, it held, cannot be extended to others contrary to the governing rules. The Tribunal had made the same point, observing that even if some other employees were wrongly granted re-fixation, that was no ground to direct the respondents to repeat the error.

Why the Tribunal stood

The Bench agreed with the Tribunal's findings. The petitioners, it said, had not shown that their initial pay fixation breached any mandatory provision of the rules.

On the review order, it said review is limited and cannot serve as an appeal in disguise. With no error apparent on the face of the record, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing it.

Under Article 226, the court said, it does not ordinarily interfere with Tribunal findings unless they are perverse, arbitrary or contrary to law. It found no jurisdictional error, illegality or perversity in the Tribunal's reasoning.

Order

The writ petition is dismissed, confirming the order of 9 January 2018 in O.A. No. 37 of 2014 and the order of 6 April 2018 in R.A. No. 020/003/2018. The Bench held that the petitioners failed to establish any legally enforceable right to initial pay at par with their last pay in the Defence Services.

There is no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending in the writ petition stand closed.