Read Full Judgment: Wg Cdr A U Tayyaba (retd) & Ors vs. Union of India & Ors
The Supreme Court of India, in response to Miscellaneous Application No. 8208 of 2024, concerning Civil Appeal Nos. 79-82 of 2022, heard arguments from Ms. Pooja Dhar for the appellants and Mr. R Balasubramanian for the respondents. The court condoned the delay in filing the application and addressed the directions issued in a previous judgment dated November 16, 2022.
The proceedings stemmed from a directive in the November 2022 judgment, stating that all women Short Service Commissioned Officers (SSCOs) should be considered for one-time pensionary benefits upon completing the minimum qualifying service for pension, which is twenty years. Pension Payment Orders (PPOs) were subsequently issued by the Union government for these officers.
However, it was revealed during the hearing that the computation of pension payments did not include notional increments between the date of release from service and the deemed completion of twenty years of service, as directed by the court.
The court clarified that the pensionary payments should be computed based on the salary at the deemed completion of twenty years of service, and notional increments should be included for the intervening period.
Further clarifications were sought on issues such as the computation of the commuted value of pensionary payment, encashment of annual leave, and the grant of Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS) benefits.
The court directed that the commuted value of pensionary payment should be computed as of the date of the deemed completion of twenty years, with arrears to be paid by a specified date.
Regarding the encashment of annual leave, any shortfall in the allowable quantum of leave encashment should be computed and paid by a specified date.
Women SSCOs, along with similarly placed officers, were entitled to ECHS benefits upon retirement, as clarified by the court.
The court also addressed discrepancies in the PPOs, ensuring that they accurately reflect the court’s judgment before a specified deadline.
In conclusion, the court disposed of the Miscellaneous Application, providing detailed directions to rectify the grievances of the appellants and other affected officers.
Disclaimer: The case is presented solely for educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice or imply any legal conclusion. Readers should consult qualified legal professionals for specific legal advice or guidance related to any legal matters.
