Union of India & Orsv.Balakrishnan Mullikote (Ex HAV 256812 M) & Ors

Synopsis

This judgment resolves a long‑standing controversy regarding the entitlement of personnel of the Defence Security Corps (DSC) to condonation of shortfall in qualifying service for the purpose of earning a second service pension. The respondents – former Regular Army personnel who were re‑enrolled in the DSC – had rendered service in the DSC that fell short of the prescribed 15 years by up to one year. They sought condonation of the deficiency under Paragraphs 125/44 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961/2008. The Union of India resisted such claims, contending that the provisions for condonation were not applicable to DSC personnel and that the matter was governed exclusively by the DSC‑specific provisions (Paragraph 175). The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that (i) the pensionary provisions applicable to Personnel Below Officer Rank (PBOR) of the Regular Army are equally applicable to DSC personnel unless expressly inconsistent; (ii) no inconsistency exists between the condonation provisions and the DSC‑specific provisions; and (iii) the Union cannot, by way of executive letters, override clear provisions of the Regulations. The Court also directed that the length of qualifying service be first determined in accordance with the rounding‑off provisions (Paragraphs 9/18 and Note 5 of the 1987 letter), and that thereafter condonation be granted for shortfall up to one year.

2. Basic Information of the Judgment

Case Title: Union of India & Ors. vs. Balakrishnan Mullikote (Ex HAV 256812 M) & Ors. (with connected matters)

Civil Appeal Nos.: Arising out of Diary No. 27246/2023 and numerous other appeals/SLPs (consolidated)

Bench: Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan

Judgment Author: The judgment is delivered by the Bench collectively (per curiam)

Date of Decision: March 24, 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 286

Appeal From: Orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal (Principal Bench and various Regional Benches) as well as orders of the High Courts (Punjab and Haryana, Delhi) that had allowed the claims of the respondents.

3. Legal Framework

This judgment involves the interpretation of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 and 2008, the status of the Defence Security Corps (DSC), and the principles governing condonation of shortfall in qualifying service.

A. Key Provisions of the Pension Regulations:

• Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961:
  Paragraph 9: Provided for rounding‑off of qualifying service – a fraction of a year equal to three months and above but less than six months to be treated as a completed half‑year, and the pension to be increased accordingly.
  Paragraph 125: Condonation of deficiency in service for eligibility to service/reservist pension – except in specified cases (discharge at own request, special pension, invalidation with less than 15 years), deficiency may be condoned up to six months (later up to one year by amendment).
  Paragraph 266: The grant of pensionary awards to DSC personnel shall be governed by the same general rules as applicable to combatants of the Army, except where they are inconsistent with the provisions of the DSC chapter.

• Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008:
  Paragraph 18: Similar rounding‑off provision.
  Paragraph 44: Condonation of deficiency in service for eligibility to pension/gratuity up to 12 months, except in cases of discharge at own request, invalidation with less than 15 years, or eligibility for special pension.
  Paragraph 47: Minimum qualifying service for service pension is 15 years.
  Paragraph 173: The grant of pensionary awards to DSC personnel shall be governed by the same Regulations as applicable to PBOR of the Army, except where inconsistent with the provisions of the DSC chapter.
  Paragraph 175(a)(i): For DSC personnel who opted to continue drawing their military pension (i.e., not counting former service), the qualifying service for a second service pension is “15 years or more” of actual service in the DSC.

• Government of India, Ministry of Defence Letter dated 30.10.1987 (implementing Fourth Central Pay Commission recommendations):
  Note 5: In calculating the length of qualifying service, fraction of a year equal to three months and above but less than six months shall be treated as a completed half‑year and reckoned as qualifying service.

B. Related Precedents (Discussed in the Judgment):

• Union of India v. Surender Singh Parmar (2015) 3 SCC 404: Held that an ex‑serviceman who had voluntarily retired with 13 years 10 months and 13 days of service was entitled to the benefit of rounding‑off under the 1987 instructions and condonation of shortfall up to one year under the delegated powers.

• Ex Sep. Chhatar Pal v. Union of India (Civil Appeal No. 6692 of 2019): Distinguished on facts – the DSC personnel in that case was discharged for misconduct, not voluntarily; the Court held that condonation is discretionary and may be denied in such cases.

• Union of India v. LNK DSC Mani Ram (LPA No. 755 of 2010, Punjab & Haryana High Court): Read down the prohibition against condonation for second service pension.

• Ex Sep. Madan Singh v. Union of India (W.P.(C) No. 9593 of 2003, Delhi High Court): Interpreted the provisions in favour of the DSC personnel.

• Smt. Shama Kaur v. Union of India (OA No. 1238/2016, AFT Principal Bench): Held that DSC personnel are entitled to condonation of shortfall for second spell of service, and that the Union cannot repeatedly issue circulars to nullify judicial decisions.

4. Relevant Facts of the Case

1. Nature of the Dispute: The respondents are former Regular Army personnel who were re‑enrolled in the Defence Security Corps (DSC) after their retirement from the Army. At the time of re‑enrolment, they exercised the option to continue drawing their military pension (i.e., they did not count their former service towards the DSC spell). Consequently, their service in the DSC was treated as a separate, independent engagement.

2. Service Period and Shortfall: Each respondent rendered service in the DSC that was less than the 15 years required for a service pension under Paragraph 175(a)(i) of the Pension Regulations, 2008. The shortfall ranged from a few days to less than one year.

3. Entitlement Claimed: The respondents claimed that, after applying the rounding‑off provisions (Paragraphs 9/18 and Note 5 of the 1987 letter), their effective qualifying service would be computed as 14 years or more, and that the shortfall of less than one year should be condoned under Paragraph 125/44 of the Pension Regulations.

4. Union’s Stand: The Union of India argued that the condonation provisions are not applicable to DSC personnel; that the DSC is governed exclusively by Chapter VIII (Paragraphs 173–181) of the Pension Regulations, 2008; and that Paragraph 175(a)(i) requires “actual” qualifying service of “15 years or more”, with no scope for condonation. The Union also relied on its executive letters dated 20.06.2017 and 22.03.2022, which stated that condonation for second service pension in DSC has no merit.

5. Judicial History: The AFT and several High Courts had allowed the claims of similarly situated DSC personnel. The Union filed numerous appeals before the Supreme Court, which were consolidated for hearing.

5. Issues Identified by the Supreme Court

The Court framed two substantial questions of law:

1. Whether the Union of India, through the Ministry of Defence, is bound to give effect to Paragraphs 9 and 18 of the Pension Regulations, 1961 and 2008 respectively, as well as Note 5 appended to the letter dated 30.10.1987, while determining the length of qualifying service of personnel serving in the Defence Security Corps (DSC).

2. Whether such personnel are entitled to seek condonation of deficiency in the qualifying period of service for the purpose of pension eligibility in accordance with Paragraph 125 of the Pension Regulations, 1961 and Paragraph 44 of the Pension Regulations, 2008.

6. Ratio Decidendi (The Reasoning and Decision of the Court)

The Supreme Court dismissed all the appeals, affirming the orders of the AFT and the High Courts. The reasoning is as follows:

A. DSC Personnel are Part of “Armed Forces Personnel” and Governed by the Same Pensionary Provisions

• The DSC is a Corps of the Indian Army under the Army Act, 1950 and Army Rules, 1954. Consequently, DSC personnel are collectively recognised as “Armed Forces personnel”.

• Paragraphs 266 (1961 Regulations) and 173 (2008 Regulations) expressly provide that pensionary awards to DSC personnel shall be governed by the same rules applicable to PBOR of the Regular Army, except where they are inconsistent with the DSC‑specific provisions. Therefore, the default rule is that the general pensionary provisions apply.

B. Meaning of “Inconsistent”

• The Court defined “inconsistent” as provisions that are mutually contradictory, repugnant, or irreconcilable to the extent that the operation of one necessarily negates the other. The judicial duty is to harmonise provisions wherever possible.

• The DSC‑specific provisions (Paragraph 175) deal with the computation of pension and the conditions for the option exercised by the individual. They do not contain any express prohibition against condonation of shortfall. Therefore, there is no inconsistency between Paragraph 175 and Paragraphs 44/47.

C. Condonation Provisions Apply to DSC Personnel

• Paragraphs 125 and 44 are part of the general pensionary rules. By virtue of the incorporation by reference in Paragraphs 266/173, they apply to DSC personnel unless excluded by a specific inconsistency. No such exclusion exists.

• The Union’s argument that Paragraph 175 uses the word “actual” while Paragraph 47 uses “minimum” is mere “hairsplitting”. Both provisions unequivocally require 15 years of service. Condonation is a separate mechanism to treat a shortfall as qualifying service, and nothing in Paragraph 175 forbids it.

D. Rounding‑off Must First Be Applied

• Before considering condonation, the length of qualifying service must be determined in accordance with Paragraphs 9/18 and Note 5 of the 1987 letter. These provisions are beneficial and must be given effect.

E. Executive Letters Cannot Amend the Regulations

• The letters dated 20.06.2017 and 22.03.2022, which sought to prohibit condonation for second service pension, are executive instructions. They cannot override the clear and categorical provisions of the Pension Regulations. Once the Regulations are in force, they can only be amended by the rule‑making authority, not by administrative circulars.

F. Consistent Judicial View

• The Punjab and Haryana High Court, Delhi High Court, and the Principal Bench of the AFT have consistently held in favour of the respondents. These decisions have attained finality and have been implemented by the Union. The Union cannot revive the issue by issuing fresh letters in disregard of settled law.

G. Distinction from Ex Sep. Chhatar Pal

• The judgment in Ex Sep. Chhatar Pal is distinguishable. That case involved a DSC personnel who was discharged for misconduct (six red ink entries). The power to condone is discretionary; the Court found that the shortfall in that case was not made up even after condonation, and the misconduct weighed against exercising discretion. In the present batch, the respondents voluntarily sought discharge and had unblemished service records.

7. New Legal Principles Established / Reiterated

1. Incorporation by Reference: The pensionary provisions for PBOR of the Regular Army apply to DSC personnel unless expressly excluded by an inconsistency. The onus is on the Union to demonstrate such inconsistency.

2. Executive Instructions Cannot Override Statutory Regulations: Once the Pension Regulations are validly framed under the Army Act, they have statutory force. Executive letters cannot amend or nullify their provisions.

3. Discretionary Power of Condonation: The power to condone shortfall is discretionary (use of “may”). It can be exercised in deserving cases, particularly where the shortfall is marginal and the discharge is voluntary.

4. Rounding‑off and Condonation Are Distinct Steps: The calculation of qualifying service must first include rounding‑off under Paragraphs 9/18 and Note 5. Only after that, if a shortfall remains, condonation may be sought.

5. Finality of Judicial Decisions: Once a consistent judicial interpretation has been accepted and implemented by the government, it cannot be unsettled by subsequent executive letters without a corresponding amendment to the Regulations.

8. The Court’s Analysis and Examination of Concepts

• Status of DSC Personnel: The Court examined the legal status of the DSC under the Army Act and Rules, concluding that it is an integral part of the Army. Therefore, any discrimination between Regular Army personnel and DSC personnel in the application of pensionary provisions would require a clear legislative basis, which is absent.

• Harmonious Construction: The Court reconciled Paragraph 175 (DSC‑specific) with Paragraphs 44 and 47 (general) by holding that the former deals with the computation of pension for those who opt to continue drawing their first pension, while the latter deals with eligibility. Condonation is a separate mechanism that does not conflict with either.

• Legitimate Expectation and Equity: The Court noted that the respondents, after having served the nation for decades, were left without a second pension due to a shortfall of a few months. The Union’s interpretation would deprive them of a benefit that the Regulations, on a fair reading, intended to confer.

• Rejection of “Actual” Service Argument: The Court observed that even if the word “actual” is used in Paragraph 175, the condonation provision operates to treat the deficient period as “actual” service after condonation. There is no rule that condonation applies only to first service pensions.

• Doctrine of Res Judicata/Consistency: The Court took note of the fact that the Union had implemented the earlier judgments in favour of similarly situated personnel. It held that the government cannot pick and choose which judicial decisions to accept; consistency is essential for the rule of law.

9. Critical Analysis of the Judgment

This judgment is a significant affirmation of the rights of DSC personnel and a strong rebuke to the government’s attempt to circumvent settled law through executive circulars.

• Strength – Clarity on Applicability of General Provisions: The Court has firmly established that the general pensionary provisions (including condonation) apply to DSC personnel unless expressly excluded. This ends decades of litigation where the Union repeatedly argued that DSC service was governed exclusively by the DSC chapter.

• Protection Against Executive Overreach: By holding that executive letters cannot amend the Regulations, the Court has upheld the supremacy of statutory rules. This is a vital safeguard against administrative fiat.

• Practical Guidance for Implementation: The Court’s direction to first compute qualifying service with rounding‑off and then apply condonation provides a clear, step‑by‑step framework for the authorities. This will facilitate expeditious implementation.

• Potential Critique – Discretion Not Exhaustively Discussed: The judgment notes that condonation is discretionary but does not lay down exhaustive guidelines for when discretion should be exercised. However, the facts of the present batch (voluntary discharge, unblemished record) are clearly deserving cases.

• Impact on Future Litigation: The judgment will effectively close the doors for the Union to raise the same objection in future cases. It also reinforces that the Union must respect judicial pronouncements and not revive dead issues through fresh circulars.

10. Final Outcome

The Supreme Court dismissed all the appeals filed by the Union of India. It held:

• The length of qualifying service of the respondents shall be determined in accordance with Paragraphs 9 and 18 of the Pension Regulations, 1961 and 2008 respectively, and Note 5 of the Government of India letter dated 30.10.1987.

• If, after such determination, the shortfall in qualifying service for a second service pension is one year or less, the deficiency shall be condoned in accordance with Paragraph 125 of the Pension Regulations, 1961 or Paragraph 44 of the Pension Regulations, 2008.

• The executive letters dated 20.06.2017 and 22.03.2022 cannot override the statutory provisions of the Pension Regulations.

• The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.

11. (MCQs)

1. Under the Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008, the pensionary awards for Defence Security Corps (DSC) personnel are governed by the same provisions as applicable to PBOR of the Regular Army, except where:?
a) The DSC chapter provides a higher pension.
b) The DSC provisions are inconsistent with the general provisions.
c) The DSC personnel opt for counting former service.
d) The DSC personnel are discharged on medical grounds.

2. Which of the following statements best describes the Supreme Court’s view on executive letters issued by the Ministry of Defence?
a) Such letters can override the Pension Regulations if issued with the concurrence of the Finance Division.
b) Such letters can clarify ambiguity but cannot amend or override clear provisions of the Regulations.
c) Such letters are binding on the Armed Forces Tribunals.
d) Such letters are valid only if issued after 2008.

3. In the present case, the Supreme Court held that the respondents were entitled to condonation of shortfall in qualifying service because:?
a) The respondents had completed 15 years of service in the Regular Army.
b) The condonation provisions apply to DSC personnel by incorporation, and there was no inconsistency with the DSC‑specific provisions.
c) The DSC personnel had no other source of pension.
d) The government had issued a fresh letter permitting condonation.

4. Which of the following is NOT a step directed by the Supreme Court to determine the respondents’ eligibility for second service pension?

a) First, compute the length of qualifying service applying the rounding‑off provisions of Paragraphs 9/18 and Note 5 of the 1987 letter.
b) Then, if a shortfall remains, consider condonation of deficiency up to one year under Paragraphs 125/44.
c) Finally, if the shortfall exceeds one year, refer the matter to the Ministry of Law.
d) None of the above.