Non-Combatant Enrolled personnel cannot claim pension after 15 years absent specific enabling rules.

The respondent was enrolled in the Indian Air Force on 19 March 1979 as a Non-Combatant Enrolled [NC(E)] for a 15-year term of regular service. On 19 September 1992, he expressly declined further extension and recorded that he understood he would be discharged after 15 years without pensionary benefits. He was discharged on 31 March 1994 and accepted the discharge without protest.

After approximately 28 years, he filed O.A. No. 68 of 2022 before the Armed Forces Tribunal, claiming pension on the basis of 15 years’ service. The Tribunal allowed the application on 18 August 2025, directed payment of lifelong pension from 1 April 1994, and restricted arrears to three years preceding the application by relying on Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 649. The Union of India and Air Force authorities challenged that decision before the Calcutta High Court.

1. Whether an NC(E) member of the Indian Air Force who completed 15 years of service was entitled to pension in the absence of documentary proof or a specific rule prescribing 15 years as the qualifying service.

2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in granting pension by relying on its understanding that the qualifying service had been reduced to 15 years and by treating the respondent as covered by the 31 December 1971 “combatisation” decision.

3. Whether the respondent’s written refusal of extension, acceptance of discharge without protest, and 28-year delay barred him, by conduct, from subsequently claiming pensionary benefits.

The Court applied Clause 24 of the applicable Air Force pension framework, under which retiring, disability and family pensions for NC(E) personnel were admissible according to the rules applicable to similar categories in the Army.

It considered paragraph 145 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, which was relied upon by the petitioners as prescribing 20 years’ qualifying service for relevant non-combatant personnel, as well as Air Force Instructions 12/69 and 14/1980.

The Court also considered the Government’s communication dated 31 December 1971, which sanctioned the “combatisation” of specified NC(E) categories and permitted eligible personnel to opt for such conversion; only the listed categories could claim the benefits of the revised terms.

The Court reaffirmed that pension is not a bounty and that delay alone does not defeat an established pension right, while relying on Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 649, regarding limitation of arrears in continuing pension claims.

The Court held that the Tribunal had presumed, without documentary support, that the qualifying service for the respondent’s category had been reduced to 15 years and had improperly relied on the personal knowledge of one of its members.

The 31 December 1971 decision applied only to nine specified NC(E) categories eligible for combatisation; there was no evidence or pleading that “Laskar” was one of those categories or that the respondent had exercised the option to become combatised.

Further, the respondent’s own written declaration showed that he understood that 15 years’ service would not entitle him to pension, and he nevertheless declined extension, accepted discharge, and raised the claim only after 28 years.

Although delay could not defeat a valid pension entitlement, the respondent first had to establish that such entitlement existed under the governing rules; in the absence of a specific rule or evidence establishing 15 years as the qualifying service for his category, the Tribunal’s decision was held to be de hors the applicable pension provisions.

The Tribunal had erred by relying on assumptions and unsupported personal knowledge rather than documentary evidence and applicable rules. The writ petition was allowed; the Armed Forces Tribunal’s judgment dated 18 August 2025 in O.A. No. 68 of 2022 was quashed and set aside, and the Rule was made absolute.