Arrears of pension are payable from the date due based on correct notional pay fixation.

The petitioner’s late husband was appointed as an Assistant Commandant in the Border Security Force (BSF) on 01.06.1969

He expired while on duty in Srinagar on 01.06.1972

Following his death, the petitioner was granted Extraordinary Family Pension (EFP)

Upon the implementation of the 7th Central Pay Commission (CPC) effective 01.01.2016, the respondents fixed her EFP at ₹33,660 (calculated as 60% of ₹56,100, which is the minimum of Pay Level 10)

The petitioner approached the Court seeking a revision of the EFP, contending that her husband had earned three increments before his death, which should be factored into the notional pay fixation under Table No. 32 of the relevant Office Memorandum (OM) dated 06.07.2016, resulting in a higher pension based on a pay of ₹63,100

1. Whether the petitioner's Extraordinary Family Pension (EFP) should be revised based on Table No. 31 or Table No. 32 of the OM dated 06.07.2016 for notional pay fixation under the 7th CPC

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to arrears arising from revised EFP computations for the periods starting from 01.01.1996 (5th CPC) and 01.01.2006 (6th CPC) based on the correct application of increments

The Court applied the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules and the Department of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare OMs dated 04.08.2016, 12.05.2017, and 06.07.2017 regarding the implementation of 7th CPC recommendations for pre-2016 pensioners

The court also relied on the principle that pension is a "valuable right" and a "property" under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, as established in Union of India v. SGT Girish Kumar and Ors., 2026 INSC 149, which prohibits the arbitrary restriction of arrears to three years if the right is established by policy

The Court examined the applicability of Table No. 31 versus Table No. 32.

It determined that Table No. 32 was inapplicable because the husband’s pay scale did not match the specific fixed scales or ranges defined therein for the 5th and 6th CPC periods

However, the Court identified a discrepancy in the respondents' calculations for the 5th and 6th CPC periods. Although the respondents correctly identified the husband's pay as ₹2,650 as of 01.01.1986 (under the 4th CPC), they failed to carry forward the corresponding higher values in the subsequent pay commissions

Per Table No. 31, a pay of ₹2,650 in 1986 corresponds to ₹8,550 on 01.01.1996 and ₹21,310 on 01.01.2006

While the final fixation as of 01.01.2016 would still converge at the minimum of Level 10 (₹56,100), the petitioner was underpaid for the intervening decades

The Court reasoned that since the State had made a conscious policy decision for notional pay fixation, it could not deny the substantive arrears that logically flowed from a correct calculation of that policy

It held that the 7th CPC fixation of EFP at ₹33,660 (60% of ₹56,100) effective 01.01.2016 was correct as per Table No. 31

The Court directed the respondents to recalculate and refix the petitioner’s EFP effective 01.01.1996 based on a notional pay of ₹8,550, and effective 01.01.2006 based on a notional pay of ₹21,310

The respondents were ordered to pay the arrears of the difference in EFP from 1996 and 2006 onwards, along with 6% interest per annum, within twelve weeks