Revised pay scales for trade rationalization take effect from date of commission's inception, not a later committee date.

The respondent, a Master Warrant Officer (MWO) in the "Education Instructor" trade of the Indian Air Force, was discharged on 31.08.1996 after 26 years of service

Following the 5th Central Pay Commission recommendations, his trade was upgraded from Group-II to Group 'X'. The petitioners (Union of India) contended this reclassification was effective only from 10.10.1997 and did not apply retrospectively to those retired before that date

The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) ruled in favor of the respondent, granting revised benefits from 01.01.1996 based on the case of Ex GDR Chhotulal Ors. v. UOI.

The petitioners challenged this before the High Court, arguing the claim was barred by a 21-year delay and should be restricted to three years of arrears per Union of India v. Tarsem Singh

The court relied on the Gazette Notification dated 10.10.1997, which stipulated that revised pay scales were effective from 01.01.1996

It applied findings from the Raksha Mantri’s Committee of Experts Report (2015), which stated that any executive instruction restricting benefits to a future cut-off date (10.10.1997) was null and void

Regarding delay, the Court distinguished Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648 (which restricts arrears to three years for belated claims) by applying Union of India v. SGT Girish Kumar (2026) SCC Online SC 194, holding that re-computation of existing pension is a continuing wrong and delay is calculated from the date the legal right was clarified—in this case, by the 2015 Report

It also cited Jai Narayan Jakhar v. Union of India (CWP No. 15400/2006), where the Supreme Court upheld initial entitlement from 01.01.1996

The Court reasoned that the 2015 Ministry of Defence Report explicitly removed the anomaly regarding the effective date, confirming that revised scales must relate back to 01.01.1996 as per the Cabinet-approved Gazette

On the issue of limitation, the Court held that the respondent’s cause of action survived because he was already receiving a pension (albeit at the wrong rate), making it a case of re-computation rather than a fresh claim for entitlement

Furthermore, the Court found that the respondent's right to approach the Tribunal effectively accrued only after the 2015 Report clarified the Government's stance, thus his 2017 filing was not delayed

The Court censured the petitioners for pursuing "unethical" litigation on a settled issue, noting that similarly situated employees had already been granted these benefits

The Court held that the respondent is entitled to Group 'X' pay and pensionary benefits effective from 01.01.1996

It refused to restrict arrears to three years, finding no laches since the right was clarified in 2015

The petitioners were directed to release all consequential benefits within four weeks and were further ordered to pay costs of Rs. 15,000/- to the respondent for arbitrary and discriminatory conduct