LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/wg-cdr-a-u-tayyaba-retd-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-20240415/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

Wg Cdr A U Tayyaba (retd) & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
15 April 2024
Case No.
Miscellaneous Application Diary No. 8208 of 2024
Result
Disposed
Bench
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra
Citation
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 518 : 2024 INSC 311
Supreme Court Reports [2024] 4 S.C.R. 518 : 2024 INSC 311
Issue for consideration
Matter pertains to clarification of the order passed by this Court as regards grant of pensionary benefits to the women Short Service Commissioned Officers in Armed Forces.
Headnote

Armed Forces – Women Short Service Commissioned Officers – Pensionary benefits – Order by this Court granting one time pensionary benefits to the women Short Service Commissioned Officers on basis that they have completed the minimum qualifying service of twenty years, required for pension – Eligible officers in terms thereof, not entitled to any arrears of salary, but the arrears of pension payable with effect from the date on which the officers are deemed to have completed twenty years of service – Pursuant thereto, women officers were released from service at the end of the fourteenth year and for computing the pension, salary was taken as the last drawn salary as of the date of the release, and no increments were granted to the applicants between the date of release and the date on which they are deemed to have completed twenty years service in terms of the aforesaid order – Applicants case that directions not correctly interpreted, once the applicants have been treated to have completed the minimum qualifying service required for pension, the last drawn salary must be taken as on that date and increments have to be computed for pension:

Held: Order by this Court granting one time pensionary benefits to the women Short Service Commissioned Officers clarified – Pensionary payments would have to be computed on the basis of the salary on the date of the deemed completion of twenty years – Women SSCOs entitled to notional increments between the date of release and the date on which they have completed the minimum qualifying period for pension, namely, the deemed completion of twenty years – On basis thereof, the one time pensionary payment due in terms of the previous order revised and arrears due and payable to be paid within the stipulated period – Issues as regards the computation of the commuted value of the pensionary payment, encashment of annual leave, and grant of ECHS benefits also clarified. [Paras 11]

Keywords: Pensionary benefits · Women Short Service Commissioned Officers · One time pensionary benefits · Minimum qualifying service required for pension · Arrears of salary · Arrears of pension · Last drawn salary · Date of the release · Increments · Notional increments · Computation of the commuted value of the pensionary payment · Encashment of annual leave · Grant of ECHS benefits

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

Order We have heard Ms Pooja Dhar, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr R Balasubramanian, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. Delay in filing the Miscellaneous Application is condoned. These proceedings arise from a judgment dated 16 November 2022 in Wg Cdr A U Tayyaba (retd) & Ors v Union of India & Ors1. The specific directions which form the subject matter of these proceedings are set out below: "i. All the women SSCOs governed by the present batch of cases shall be considered for the grant of onetime pensionary benefits on the basis that they have c
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →