UNION OF INDIA vs NO. 610812A EX MWO PRABHU SINGH SHEKHAWAT

[2026:RJ-JD:25389-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5056/2026
1. Union of India through its Secretary to the Government of
India, New Delhi
2. Chief of the Air Staff, Air Head Quarter, New Delhi
3. Air Head Quarter, DTE of Air Veterans Subroto Park, New
Delhi 110010
4. Office of the Deputy Controller of Defence Accounts, Air
Force Subroto Park, New Delhi 110010
----Petitioners
Versus
No. 610812A Ex MWO Prabhu Singh Shekhawat, R/o Plot No.421
Mohan Nagar B, BJS Colony, Jodhpur
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tirupati Chandra with
Mr. Satish Kumar Trivedi, Warrant
Officer.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dharampal Singh Dhaka.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
J U D G M E N T
RESERVED ON : 11/05/2026
PRONOUNCED ON : /06/2026 16
Reportable
Per Hon’ble Dr. Justice Nupur Bhati:
1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India claiming
following relief(s):
“xxx…….xxx
(i) The impugned (Annex-3) order dated 4.9.2023 and order
dated 21.11.2025 (Annex-5) may kindly be quashed and set
aside.
(ii) The arrears with respect to the X-pay pension to Edn
Instructor may kindly be restricted to a period of three years,
prior to filing of Original Application (Annx.-1) by the
respondent.
xxx…..xxx ”
(Uploaded on 19/06/2026 at 03:27:15 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/06/2026 at 12:03:22 AM)

(2 of 13)
[2026:RJ-JD:25389-DB] [CW-5056/2026]
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-original
applicant was enrolled in the Indian Air Force on 12.08.1970 and,
upon completion of 26 years and 20 days of service, was
discharged on 31.08.1996 in the rank of Master Warrant Officer
(MWO), Group-II. Consequent thereto, he was sanctioned service
pension with effect from 01.09.1996 under the applicable PPOs.
The respondent-original applicant subsequently claimed that,
pursuant to the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay
Commission, the trade of “Education Instructor,” in which he had
served throughout his tenure, stood upgraded from Group-II to
Group ‘X’ with effect from 01.01.1996, thereby entitling him to
revised pay, allowances and consequential pensionary benefits. In
support of his claim, reliance was placed upon a communication
dated 16.11.2015 issued by the Directorate of Personnel Services,
Air Headquarters under the Right to Information Act. The
respondent-original applicant thereafter submitted representations
and a legal notice seeking grant of Group ‘X’ pay and revision of
pensionary benefits; however, the same came to be rejected by
the competent authorities on the ground that the trade
rationalization pursuant to the recommendations of the Ajit Kumar
Committee had been made effective only from 10.10.1997 and did
not operate retrospectively. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent-
original applicant preferred an Original Application before the
learned Armed Forces Tribunal. The present petitioners contested
the claim by filing a detailed reply before the learned Tribunal
under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. The
learned Tribunal, vide order dated 04.09.2023, disposed of the
Original Application with liberty to the respondent-original
(Uploaded on 19/06/2026 at 03:27:15 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/06/2026 at 12:03:22 AM)

(3 of 13)
[2026:RJ-JD:25389-DB] [CW-5056/2026]
applicant to approach the competent authorities for grant of pay
and pensionary benefits in terms of the order passed in OA
No.580/2012 titled “ Ex GDR Chhotulal & Ors. v. UOI & Ors. ” and
further observed that, in case of any discrepancy, he would be at
liberty to submit a detailed representation and thereafter
approach the Tribunal afresh. The review application preferred by
the present petitioners against the said order also came to be
dismissed vide order dated 21.11.2025. Hence, the present writ
petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
respondent-original applicant was discharged from service on
31.08.1996 after rendering 26 years and 20 days of qualifying
service and was granted pension in accordance with the
recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission applicable to
his rank and group. Learned counsel further submits that the trade
rationalization in the Armed Forces, based on the
recommendations of the Ajit Kumar Committee constituted by the
Ministry of Defence, was implemented with effect from 10.10.1997
and the revised pay scales introduced pursuant thereto were
purely prospective in nature without any retrospective application.
He further submitted that the petitioner who retired prior to
10.10.1997 was not entitled to the revised pay scales or
pensionary benefits flowing from such trade rationalization.
Counsel further submits that prior to trade rationalization, trades
and groups in the Indian Air Force were categorized in five groups,
namely I to V, which were subsequently restructured into X, Y and
Z categories with effect from 10.10.1997.
(Uploaded on 19/06/2026 at 03:27:15 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/06/2026 at 12:03:22 AM)

(4 of 13)
[2026:RJ-JD:25389-DB] [CW-5056/2026]
4. Reliance is also placed on the judgment passed in Jai
Narayan Jakhar v. Union of India & Ors Punjab and
Haryana High Court : CWP No.15400/2006 decided on
14.01.2008, wherein recalculation of pension was directed;
however, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Union of India v. Tarsem Singh reported in 2008 8 SCC 648
mandates that in cases involving belated service claims, arrears
are liable to be restricted to a period of three years prior to
institution of the proceedings. It is thus contended that since the
original application was filed after an inordinate delay of more
than 21 years, the learned Tribunal erred in not restricting the
arrears accordingly and no interest on arrears could have been
granted.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent supported the order passed by the learned Tribunal
and submitted that the same is legal, well-reasoned and based
upon settled principles of law. It was contended that the learned
Tribunal has rightly placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in
Jai Narayan Jakhar v. Union of India & Ors. , wherein the
respondent authorities were directed to re-calculate the pension.
Learned counsel further submitted that the controversy involved in
the present case is no longer res integra and stands conclusively
settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of
India through its Secretary and Ors. v. SGT Girish Kumar
and Others reported in 2026 SCC Online SC 194 ,wherein the
Hon’ble Apex Court upheld the entitlement of similarly situated
personnel to disability pension together with the benefit of broad
banding with effect from 01.01.1996 or 01.01.2006, as the case
(Uploaded on 19/06/2026 at 03:27:15 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/06/2026 at 12:03:22 AM)

(5 of 13)
[2026:RJ-JD:25389-DB] [CW-5056/2026]
may be, along with interest @ 6% per annum. He further placed
reliance upon the Judgment Union of India v. Ram Avtar
reported in [(2014) SCC Online SC 1761]. The Learned
counsel further submitted that the recommendations relating to
trade rationalization and removal of anomalies in pay scales, as
contained in Chapter-II Para 2.2.5 of the Raksha Mantri’s
Committee of Experts, 2015, clearly envisaged that the revised
and rationalized scales, though formally notified subsequently,
were to take effect from 01.01.1996 itself pursuant to the Gazette
Notification issued by the Government of India with due approval
of the Cabinet.
6. Learned counsel thus submitted that the respondent is
legally entitled to all consequential service and pensionary benefits
flowing from the upgraded Group ‘X’ classification with effect from
01.01.1996 and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the
learned Tribunal warrants no interference by this Court.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material available on record.
8. The controversy involved in the instant writ petition revolves
around two issues; firstly, whether the petitioners’ contention that
th
introduction of new pay scale (5 Central Pay Commission) with
effect from 10.10.1997, has no retrospective effect and the
personnel who retired before 10.10.1997, are not eligible for pay
scales and pensionary benefits, introduced with effect from
10.10.1997 and secondly, the issue as to whether the law laid
down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India &
Ors. v. Tarsem Singh reported in [(2008) 8 SCC 648] , that
there should be a restriction of arrears of maximum three years
(Uploaded on 19/06/2026 at 03:27:15 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/06/2026 at 12:03:22 AM)

(6 of 13)
[2026:RJ-JD:25389-DB] [CW-5056/2026]
period, prior to filing of the Original Application/Writ Petition, in
case of an inordinate delay claims, would apply in the case of
respondent.
THIS COURT, FOR ADJUDICATING THE INSTANT WRIT
PETITION, TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION THE ISSUE NO.1 :
8.1. It is an admitted fact, that the respondent had rendered 26
years and 20 days’ of qualifying service and was discharged with
effect from 31.08.1996. The respondent was also drawing the
pension with effect from 01.09.1996, which was subsequently
revised with effect from 10.10.1997. In order to decide the issue
No.1, this Court takes into consideration the report of the Ministry
of Defence (Annex.9 of the OA) published in the year 2015; in
which, Chapter II, deals with litigation and denial of revised pay
scales from 1996 till 2009 to the pensioners. The said report
clearly reflects that the revised pay scales arising out of
th
implementation of the 5 Central Pay Commission with effect from
10.10.1997, was required to be extended to the personnel with
effect from 01.01.1996 and not with effect from 10.10.1997.
Further, the report categorically states that the 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.
8.2. Further, from the perusal of the Notification dated
10.10.1997, it unequivocally reflects that the revised pay scales of
pay were made effective from 01.01.1996, which is also reiterated
(Uploaded on 19/06/2026 at 03:27:15 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/06/2026 at 12:03:22 AM)

(7 of 13)
[2026:RJ-JD:25389-DB] [CW-5056/2026]
in the report of Ministry of Defence. From the perusal of the report
of the Ministry of Defence, it appears that anomaly that crept in,
has been removed by giving the clarification that the revised pay
th
scales arising out of the 5 Central Pay Commission, are required
to be given effect from 01.01.1996 and once the anomaly has
been removed, the contention of the petitioners that the Gazette
Notification of the Government of India dated 10.10.1997 cannot
be given a retrospective effect to the personnel like the
respondent who was discharged from service with effect from
31.08.1996, does not hold water, and thus, as far as the issue
No.1 is concerned, the learned Tribunal has committed no error.
For reference, relevant part of Chapter II, from the report of
Ministry of Defence, Raksha Mantri’s Committee of Experts, 2015
(hereinafter referrred to as ‘the Report of 2015’), is reproduced
hereunder:
“ CHAPTER II INTRODUCTION
LITIGATION ON DENIAL OF BENEFITS FROM 1996 TILL 2009
TO PENSIONERS (OTHER THAN COMMISSIONED OFFICERS)
WHO RETIRED PRIOR TO 10-10- 1997:
xxx…...xxx
The Committee recommends the following on the above
subject:
(a) The 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 Govt of India
which had the due approval of the Cabinet (Para 1(b) and 4
of Annexure-15) . Any later executive instructions
restricting the effect from 10-10-1997 onwards is null
and void in the face of the gazette Notification and hence all
litigation initiated on the said point (popularly known as Jai
Narayan Jakhar's case) is unethical and needs to be
withdrawn , whether it comprises Review Applications in the
AFT or in the High Courts or appeals in the Supreme Court
since the issue specifically has been upheld by the Supreme
Court in Jakhar and Bishnoi cases (supra).
(b) The above view is also fortified by various decisions
of the Supreme Court in which it has been held that
once an anomaly is removed, it needs to be removed
from the date of its inception with full arrears from backdate
(Uploaded on 19/06/2026 at 03:27:15 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/06/2026 at 12:03:22 AM)

(8 of 13)
[2026:RJ-JD:25389-DB] [CW-5056/2026]
and not an artificial future cut-off date . Prominent amongst
such decisions are KT Veerappa Vs State of Karnataka 2006
(9) SCC 406, Civil Appeal 1123/2015 State of 42 Rajasthan
Vs Mahendra Nath Sharma decided on 01-07-2015 and Civil
PENSIONARY AND RETIRAL MATTERS Appeal 8875/2011
Union of India Vs Sqn Ldr Vinod Kumar Jain decided on 17-
03-2015.
(c) That even otherwise, whenever such anomaly has been
removed from the scales of other classes of employees,
including civilians and commissioned officers, the said
rectification in pension or pay and allowances has always
taken effect from the date of implementation of
recommendations of the pay commission, and not any future
cut-off date. For example, when the new pay grade of Rs
67000-79000 was implemented for Additional Secretaries to
Govt of India and Lt Gens in 2009, it was implemented with
effect from 01-01-2006 for pay and allowances purposes of
serving officers and for pension calculation purposes for pre-
2006 retirees whose pensions were now based on the freshly
introduced scales of 2009 with financial effect from 01-01-
2006. Similar is the case for all other ranks and grades.
Hence, it makes no logic to treat lower ranks of the three
defence services differently. Even the arrears in the "rank
pay" case, after the decision of the Supreme Court, were
granted to all officers recently with effect from 01-01-1986
with interest.
(d) Though we are not recommending promulgation of
fresh policy in this regard since we are now at the cusp
of the next pay commission, the litigation in the form
of appeals and reviews pending before the Supreme
Court, High Court and various Benches of AFT may be
immediately withdrawn by the Ministry of
Defence/Services HQ since it is not only unethical but
also a burden on the exchequer as well as the litigants
since the issue stands long settled by the Supreme
Court and is covered by the Government's own gazette
Notification. Pending/future cases be conceded on
same lines by agreeing to grant of benefits from 01-
01-1996 till 30-06--2009 without any restriction of
arrears in light of the Gazette Notification on the
subject .”
THIS COURT, NOW, TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION, THE
ISSUE NO.2 :
8.3. The second issue raised by the petitioners is that, if at all the
petitioners are extending the said revised pay scales, it ought to
have been restricted to maximum three years prior to filing of the
Original Application before the learned Tribunal, as the petitioner
has alleged that there is an inordinate delay of almost 21 years on
the part of the respondent in filing the OA before the learned
Tribunal. Admittedly, the Gazette Notification for the purpose of
(Uploaded on 19/06/2026 at 03:27:15 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/06/2026 at 12:03:22 AM)

(9 of 13)
[2026:RJ-JD:25389-DB] [CW-5056/2026]
th
implementation of 5 Central Pay Commission, was issued on
10.10.1997. The respondent was discharged from services with
effect from 31.08.1996, however, the petitioners have gravely
erred in calculating the delay with effect from 31.08.1996. The
personnel like respondent cannot be made to suffer for the error
on part of the petitioners, which is reflected from the report of the
Ministry of Defence.
8.4. It is also reflected from the perusal of the report that the
said anomaly has been removed by way of the decision passed by
the Committee in the said Report of 2015. Thus, the respondent
had no occasion to file an original application before the learned
Tribunal, prior to removal of the said anomaly, and his rights
accrue from the date when this report came into existence i.e.
2015 and the respondent has filed OA before the learned Tribunal
on 09.01.2017.
8.5. This fact is also admitted that the respondent was already in
receipt of the pension and pensionary benefits of Rs.1,400/- from
the pay scale which came into effect from 01.09.1996, which was
subsequently revised by the petitioners @ Rs.4,486/- per month.
In the case of Union of India & Ors. v. SGT Girish Kumar &
Ors. reported in [(2026) SCC Online SC 194] decided on
12.02.2026, the Hon’ble Apex Court, while distinguishing the case
of SGT Girish Kumar (supra) with the case of Union of India &
Ors. v. Tarsem Singh reported in [(2008) 8 SCC 648] , has
held that right of the petitioner in the case of SGT Girish Kumar
(supra) , accrued only on 10.12.2014 i.e. when the decision
rendered by the three-Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court
came in the case of Union of India v. Ram Avtar reported in
(Uploaded on 19/06/2026 at 03:27:15 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/06/2026 at 12:03:22 AM)

(10 of 13)
[2026:RJ-JD:25389-DB] [CW-5056/2026]
[(2014) SCC Online SC 1761] , was rendered along with the
observation that the case of Tarsem Singh (supra) , has no
application to the case in hand, as ex-servicemen in the were
already in receipt of disability pension and were only seeking re-
computation of the disability pension. Relevant para of the case of
SGT Girish Kumar (supra) , reads as thus:
“xxx…..xxx
22 . The reliance placed by the appellant on the deicision of
a two-Judge Bench of this Court in Tarsem Singh (supra) is of
no assistance to it, as the legal landscape did not remain
static after decision in Tarsem Singh . Subsequently, a three-
Judge Bench of this Court in Ram Avtar (supra), decided the
issue of applicability of instruction dated 31.01.2001 and the
aforesaid decision is in rem. For, yet another reason, the
decision in Tarsem Singh (supra) has no application to the
case in hand as ex-servicemen in the instant appeals are
already in receipt of disability pension and are only seeking
re-computation of the disability pension. The right to
approach the Tribunal accrued to ex-servicemen only on
10.12.2014 i.e., when the decision in Ram Avtar (supra) was
rendered by this Court. Therefore, the bar contained in
Section 22(1)(c) of the Act has no application to the claims
filed by the ex-servicemen before the Tribunal. In the facts
and circumstances of the case, we find that the original
applications filed by the ex-servicemen do not suffer from any
delay or laches disentitling them from claiming the relief of
arrears of disability pension. Thus, the objections founded on
the delay and limitation are without any merit.
xx…….xx”
9. This Court is of the considered view that the 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 light of the judgment passed in the case of
Tarsem Singh (supra) . 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.
(Uploaded on 19/06/2026 at 03:27:15 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/06/2026 at 12:03:22 AM)

(11 of 13)
[2026:RJ-JD:25389-DB] [CW-5056/2026]
10. We are of the considered opinion that in the case in hand,
law laid down in the case of Tarsem Singh (supra) is not
applicable; firstly, because the right to approach the learned
Tribunal accrued to the respondent only after publication of the
Report of 2015, issued by the Ministry of Defence and secondly,
the respondent is already in receipt of pension and pensionary pay
scale and had preferred the Original Application before the learned
Tribunal with a prayer for re-computation of the pay scale upon
th
implementation of the 5 Central Pay Commission with effect from
10.10.1997.
11. This Court also takes into consideration the judgment passed
by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in the
case of Jai Narayan Jakhar v. Union of India & Anr. (CWP
No.15400 of 2006) decided on 14.01.2008; wherein, in similar
set of circumstances, the writ petition was allowed while holding
the decision of respondents in giving the said revised pay scale
benefits, with effect from 10.10.1997, to be not justified and it
was held that the petitioner was entitled to the revised pay scale
from 01.01.1996; against which, Union of India preferred Special
Leave to Appeal (Civil) bearing No.128/2008, which came to be
dismissed vide order dated 21.11.2008. Relevant part of the order
passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in
the case of Jai Narayan Jakhar passed in CWP No.15400 of 2006,
reads as under:
“xxx…..xxx
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties,
we are of the opinion that the stand of the respondents that
the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of removal of
anomaly in the Pay Commission report, is wholly unjustified.
th
It was during the implementation of 5 Pay Commission
report, it was fund by the respondents that there is anomaly
(Uploaded on 19/06/2026 at 03:27:15 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/06/2026 at 12:03:22 AM)

(12 of 13)
[2026:RJ-JD:25389-DB] [CW-5056/2026]
in the Pay Scales. Once the anomaly in the Pay Scales is
found and sought to be removed then it has to be removed
from the implementation of the recommendation of the Pay
Commission i.e. 01-01-1996. There is no explanation as to
why the said anomaly is sought to be removed from 10-10-
1997. In the absence of any explanation of removal of
anomaly from 10-10-1997, we do not find the action of the
respondents fixing such date as justified. Consequently, we
hold that the petitioner is entitled to the revised pay scale of
5620-140-8140/- w.e.f. 01-10-1996. Thus, the petitioner
shall be entitled to the retiral benefits on the said pay scale.
In view of the above, we allow the present writ
petition and direct the respondents to recalculate the amount
of pension on the basis of revised pay scale of 5620-140-
8140/- w.e.f. 01-01-1996. The exercise be completed within
a period of three months from today.
The writ petition stands disposed of in above
terms.”
12. While condoning the delay occasioned in the filing the SLP,
the Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the same. The order dated
21.11.2008 is reproduced hereunder:
“Delay condoned.
The Special Leave petition is dismissed.”
13. This Court is of the considered view that the petitioners are
fully aware of the fact that the issue involved in the case of Jai
Narayan Jakhar v. Union of India (CWP No.15400 of 2006), has
been put to rest by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated
21.11.2008 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.128 of
2008 and facts of the aforesaid case are almost similar to the facts
in the present case. Despite having the knowledge of the aforesaid
facts, the petitioners have denied the respondent similar
treatment that has already been extended to the above-said
similarly situated employee. No plausible, cogent, or legally
sustainable explanation has been furnished by the petitioners to
justify such discriminatory treatment, meted out to the
respondent, who has been constrained to pursue this litigation for
(Uploaded on 19/06/2026 at 03:27:15 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/06/2026 at 12:03:22 AM)

(13 of 13)
[2026:RJ-JD:25389-DB] [CW-5056/2026]
nearly nine years. Such conduct on part of the petitioners is
wholly contrary to the principles of equality, fairness, and fair play,
and amounts to gross arbitrariness.
14. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, we do not find
any ground warranting interference with the order dated
04.09.2023 (Annex.3). The order dated 21.11.2025 (Annex.5)
passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (Circuit
Bench Jaipur), in the review petition No.13/2025 titled “ Union of
India & Ors. v. Ex MWO Prabhu Singh Shekhawt ”, is affirmed and
upheld.
15. The instant writ petition stands dismissed in the above
terms. Stay application as well as all other pending applications, if
any, also stand disposed of.
16. However, looking to the conduct of the petitioners, they are
directed to pay a cost to the tune of Rs.15,000/- to the
respondent. The petitioners are further directed to ensure release
of all consequential pay-scale revisions and pensionary benefits
accruing to the respondent pursuant to the implementation of the
th
5 Central Pay Commission, within a period of four weeks from the
date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
Devesh Thanvi/-
(Uploaded on 19/06/2026 at 03:27:15 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/06/2026 at 12:03:22 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)