Case Details: Sqn. Ldr. Nitu Thapliyal vs. Union of India - [2026] 184 taxmann.com 608 (SC)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Surya Kant, CJI | Ujjal Bhuyan & Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.
Facts of the Case
In the instant case, Applicants, SSCWOs inducted between 1993 and 1998, were released from service under policies that did not consider SSCWOs for Permanent Commission (PC). In a PIL, the High Court struck down such policies and confined relief to officers then in service or those with pending independent petitions; applicants who did not fall within those categories had their writ petitions declined, and they filed Civil Appeals.
A three-Judge Bench in AU Tayyaba (16.11.2022) allowed appeals, holding that the applicants were eligible for consideration under HRP 04/10 and, if found eligible for PC, would be entitled to pensionary benefits based on deemed completion of the minimum qualifying service for pension.
Pursuant thereto, Respondent-Authorities considered cases. Appellant Nos. 9, 13, and 15 were found ineligible for PC under HRP 04/10 for failing to meet the minimum benchmark of an average ACR grade of 6.5 over the preceding three years; their averages were 5.7, 6.24, and 6.49, respectively.
The Air Force declined pensionary benefits solely on that ground. The applicants then filed Miscellaneous Applications seeking sympathetic consideration and extension of the deemed fiction of completion of minimum pensionable service despite not meeting the ACR benchmark.
Supreme Court Held
The Supreme Court noted that there was no infirmity in the decision of the Air Force to deny pensionary benefits to SSCWOs who did not meet the minimum qualifying benchmark for the grant of PC.
The Supreme Court held that since applicants had not been able to demonstrate any specific mitigating circumstances explaining their inability to meet the prescribed threshold, the prayers made by applicants were to be rejected.
List of Cases Reviewed
- A.U. Tayyaba v. Union of India (2024) 15 SCC 338 (para 24) followed
List of Cases Referred to
- AU Tayyaba v. Union of India (2023) 5 SCC 688 (para 2)
- Babita Puniya v. Secretary 2010 SCC OnLine Del 1116 (para 4)
- Wg. Cdr. Sucheta EDN v. Union of India [Civil Appeal Diary No. 28412 of 2024, dated 24-3-2026] (para 18)
- A.U. Tayyaba v. Union of India (2024) 15 SCC 338 (para 21)
- Pooja Pal v. Union of India [2026] 184 taxmann.com 584 (SC) (para 30)
- Yogendra Kumar Singh v. Union of India [2026] 184 taxmann.com 582 (SC) (para 30).
The post SSCWOs Not Eligible for Pension Without ACR Benchmark | SC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
