Supreme Court Seeks Union's Stand On Pension Of Retired Air Force Women SSC Officers

The Supreme Court on Friday (April 5) asked the Union to clarify whether the one-time pensionary benefits granted to retired women airforce officers will be subject to revision or not. The women officers raised concerns about the correctness of the computation done for calculating their pensions, in light of the Apex Court's previous directions. 

In 2022 the Apex Court had in the exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution, directed the Indian Air Force (IAF) to consider 32 Women Short Service Commission Officers (WSSCOs) in the present batch of appeals, who were released from service between December 2006 and December 2009 and were not considered for grant of Permanent Commission (PC), for grant of one-time pensionary benefits deeming that they have completed 20 years of service.

The relief was granted following the logic applied by the Apex Court in its judgment in Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Poonia. 

The petitioners highlighted that multiple issues exist in compliance of the Court's judgment granting one-time pensionary benefits to all Women SSCO Airforce Officers : (1) the computation has been done only for 15 years instead of 20 years; (2) notional salary has not been given; (3) the calculation of the salary is from 2008-9 instead of 2013 which is the deemed date of retirement; (4) no increments have been given and (5) commutation factor of the salary is incorrectly taken as 2023 and the date of salary is taken as 2013. 

The counsel for the petitioner also directed the attention of the bench to paragraph 34 of the 2022 directions, the relevant one being : 

iii. The officers who are found eligible for the grant of pensionary benefits in terms of the present direction shall not be entitled to any arrears of salary, but the arrears of pension shall be payable with effect from the date on which the officers are deemed to have completed twenty years of service;

On the contrary, Sr Adv Col Balasubramanium appearing for the Union stated that there appears to be an air of misconception on part of the petitioners about the calculation of the pensions and increments. 

"This is a misunderstanding that they have not been given the benefit of OROP (One Rank One Pension), which I have instructions. They(Union) have actually calculated and given a revised pension as of January 1, 2016, on the basis of OROP." 

He further submitted that the increment is calculated at 3% per year of the basic salary. For 15 years, an increment of 5 years will be counted. However, the CJI reminded him that the court's direction was computation on the basis of 20 years of service. 

The CJI suggested that parties could sort out their differences and misunderstandings if any regarding whether at all authorities would revise the pensions or not. 

" If you can give us a small note, they(petitioners) say that this is a pension for life, in the sense that their pension will never be revised. If you can just clarify that ..." 

The hearing will now take place on April 15. 

Background 

The appellants are women officers who had joined the IAF as Short Service Commission Officers between 1993 and 1998 and were released from service between December 2006 and December 2009. The appointment of these officers was in terms of the advertisement dated 25.11.1991, which contemplated that the officers would initially be granted Short Service Commission for a period of 5 years.  

Thereafter they would be considered for the grant of Permanent Commission (PC). However, after rendering 5 years of service, they were not considered for PC but their period of service was extended by 6 years. On 01.09.2004, the IAF floated a policy for the grant of PC to SSCOs with a rider stating that PC would not be offered to WSSCOs. Subsequently, on 25.05.2006, a policy was issued providing for a further extension with a rider that no PC would be offered to SSCOs. Finally, a policy was issued on 26.09.2008 which envisaged granting PC prospectively to women officers across the three Armed Forces, in select branches. 

In 2003, a PIL was instituted before the Delhi High Court by an Advocate, Ms. Babita Poonia who argued that not granting PC to women SSCOs was discrimination based on gender. In the proceedings, some WSSCOs belonging to the armed forces were impleaded as petitioners.The High Court granted relief, which came to be challenged before the Apex Court by the Ministry of Defence. However, the IAF did not prefer appeal and indicated that it would implement the decision in Babita Poonia passed by the High Court on 12.11.2010. 44 women SSCOs (23 had been released and 21 were then serving) were considered for the grant of PC. A total of 41 Women SSCOs were granted PC; 3 WSSCOs indicated their unwillingness. 

Pursuant to the High Court's decision in Babita Poonia, a batch of Writ Petitions reached the Delhi High Court seeking benefit of the judgment of the High Court for WSSCOs in the IAF. On 11.08.2011, the petitions were dismissed on the ground that the petitioners who had moved the court were not covered by the operative portion of the judgment in Babita Poonia, wherein it was held that women SSCOs who opted for PC, but were not granted and only allowed extension were entitled to PC at par with men SSCOs with all consequential benefits. PC was to be offered to them after completion of 5 years.

As per Paragraph 61(3) of Babita Poonia's judgment, the decision was applicable only to (a) women officers in service and to (b) those who had approached the High Court, though they had retired during the pendency of the petitions.

A Bench comprising CJI, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice J.B. Pardiwala noted that the cases of the appellants shall be considered on the basis of the Human Resource policy of the IAF floated on 19.11.2010. It was made clear that the said officers shall not be entitled to any arrears of salary; only the arrears of pension shall be payable from the date on which the officers were deemed to have completed 20 years of service.

The issue that the Bench felt needed to be looked into in the present appeals was - 'whether the appellants stand in the same position as the officers governed by the decision in Babita Poonia'.The Bench noted that the advertisement pursuant to which the present batch of SSCOs were employed categorically mentioned that after 5 years they would be considered for grant of PC. It observed that the SSCOs deserved relief but not in the form of reinstatement -

"They have put in long years of service for IAF. During the course of the hearing the Court has been apprised by IAF that the officers have an excellent track record. In this backdrop, we are of the view that this batch of officers who moved the Delhi High Court soon after the decision in Poonia and within a reasonable period after their date of release should not be denied the benefit which emanates from that judgment. At the same time the court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the officers were released from service on diverse dates between 2006 and 2009. Therefore reinstatement in service would not be viable." 

Case Details:  Wg Cdr AU Tayyaba (Retd) and Others Vs UOI Civil Appeal Nos 79-82 of 2012