Pension is payable on last rank held despite not completing minimum ten months’ qualifying service.

The respondent, Prem Singh Gurjar, was enrolled in the Air Force on 17.11.1973 and promoted to the rank of Master Warrant Officer (MWO) on 01.07.2002.

He was discharged on 30.11.2002 after serving in the rank of MWO for only five months.

Air Force authorities sanctioned his pension in the lower rank of Warrant Officer (WO), citing Para 122 of the Pension Regulations for the Air Force, 1961, which requires a minimum of ten months in a rank to earn a pension in that rank.

The respondent challenged this before the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), which allowed his plea on 28.02.2024, directing pension at the MWO rank from the date of discharge.

The Union of India moved a modification application seeking to restrict arrears to three years prior to the filing of the Original Application (OA), which the AFT dismissed on 27.09.2024.

1. Whether a serviceman who held the last promoted rank for less than the mandatory ten months is entitled to a pension based on that higher rank

2. Whether the AFT erred in law by failing to restrict the arrears of pension to a period of three years prior to the filing of the Original Application

Government of India clarification dated 09.02.2001, which waived the 10-month rank service requirement for pension revision following the 5th Pay Commission.

The precedent set in JWO Bharat Singh Khatana v. Union of India (TA No. 339/2010), affirmed by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Bharat Singh Khatana (Civil Appeal No. 7366-7367/2011), which held that pension must be based on the last rank held regardless of the duration.

The principle from Union of India v. Sgt. Grish Kumar (2026) SCC OnLine SC 194, which holds that arrears need not be restricted if the legal right only crystallized through subsequent judicial finality.

The Court observed that the 10-month service requirement in the last rank held was explicitly waived by the Government’s own clarification for post-1996 retirees, a position already validated by the Supreme Court in the Bharat Singh Khatana case.

The Court reasoned that the respondent's right to claim the higher pension effectively crystallized only on 08.03.2016, when the Supreme Court affirmed the Khatana precedent.

Since the respondent submitted a representation in 2018 shortly after this crystallization, and since pension constitutes a "continuing wrong" with a recurring cause of action, the Court found the delay justifiable.

It held that the petitioners could not rely on Tarsem Singh to restrict arrears because the respondent had diligently pursued his remedy once the legal position became settled.

It held that the respondent is entitled to pensionary benefits in the rank of MWO from the date of his retirement, notwithstanding the short duration of service in that rank.

Arrears are not to be restricted to three years because the claim followed the crystallization of legal rights via the Bharat Singh Khatana judgment and the subsequent rejection of the respondent's representation.

The orders of the AFT dated 28.02.2024 and 27.09.2024 were upheld.