Rajasthan High Court Fines State ₹15,000 For Denying Fifth-Pay Commission Benefits To Ex-Air Force Personnel Despite SC Order

The division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Dr. Justice Nupur Bhati further opined that despite having knowledge of a Supreme Court decision (Jai Narayan Jakhar v. Union of India 2008) that dealt with similar facts and reached the same conclusion, State's conduct of denying similar treatment to the respondent amount to discriminatory treatment and gross arbitrariness.

For context, the Court was hearing a challenge against the order of the Armed Forces Tribunal (“Tribunal”), wherein the Tribunal had ordered the State to pay the pensionary benefits to the respondent in accordance with the 5^th pay commission.

The respondent was enrolled in Indian Air Force, and retired from service in 1996 after rendering 26 years of service. Subsequently, he claimed pensionary benefits based on recommendations of the 5^th pay commission, which were denied.

When an application was filed before the Tribunal, the challenged order was passed by the Tribunal, which was challenged by the State in the present matter.

The State argued that as per the recommendations of the Ajit Kumar Committee, the application of 5^th pay commission had to be from October 10, 1997 and not retrospectively. Since the petitioner retired in 1996 itself, he was not entitled to the benefits introduced in the 5^th pay commission.

After hearing the contentions, the Court referred to the report of Ministry of Defence, Raksha Mantri's Committee of Experts, published in 2015, in which Chapter II provided that revised pay scales owing to the 5^th pay commission that got implemented on October 10, 1997, had to be given effect from January 1, 1996.

“…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, which had the due approval of the Cabinet Committee and that the restriction of giving effect to the revised pay scales with effect from 10.10.1997 onwards, was considered to be null and void.”

The Court opined that this report removed the anomaly that was created.

Further, the Court rejected the argument by the State that the application was filed by the respondent with inordinate delay since he retired in 1996 and the application was filed only in 2017.

It was held that since the anomaly was cleared by the report in 2015 only, the respondent had no occasion to file the application before that. It was opined that the respondent could not be made to suffer from the error of the petitioners, which was reflected from the report.

Further, the Court observed,

“…claim pertaining to arrears arising out of pensionary benefits constitutes a continuing wrong, giving rise to a recurring and successive cause of action with each denial or short payment of the pension due to the claimant…In the present case, no third-party rights have been created; therefore, any delay in filing the original application does not adversely affect or prejudice the rights of any third party.”

The Court also highlighted similar decision by the Supreme Court in the case of Jai Narayan Jakhar v. Union of India & Anr. which dealt with similar facts, and held the no cogent or legally valid explanation was provided by the State for not giving the same treatment to the respondent in the present matter.

Terming the conduct to be contrary to the principles of equality, fairness and fair play, the petition was dismissed, and the Court imposed a cost of Rs. 15,000 on the State.

Title: Union of India & Ors. v No. 610812A Ex MWO Prabhu Singh Shekhawat

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 264