SSC officers approached the Supreme Court seeking justice for a breach of Article 14. They allege discriminatory practices in employment, citing violations of their constitutional rights. The case highlights broader concerns regarding fairness and equality in government hiring practices. The outcome could have significant implications for similar cases across various sectors.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court scheduled to review a petition lodged by more than 400 Short Service Commissioned Officers (SSCOs) who seeking post-retirement benefits, including pension and contributory provident funds.
The petitioners consist of current and recently retired SSCOs who commissioned on or after January 1, 2004. They belong to various branches, cadres, and departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force.
They express sorrow that they are “the sole group of government officials nationwide denied benefits under the Old Pension Scheme, the new National Pension Scheme, and even under Contributory Provident Funds.”
In March, a petition filed claiming a violation of the right to equality and arguing that post-retirement benefits are derived from the right to a dignified life as stated in Article 21 of the Constitution. On 3 May, a bench consisting of Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra acknowledged the petition and issued notice.
The case scheduled to be heard again on 15 July.
The petition stressed that,
“Multiple courts have acknowledged that pension is not a bounty given at the ‘sweet will and pleasure’ of the government, and receiving pension is a valuable entitlement for a government employee.”
The plea emphasized that SSCOs invest many of their most productive years serving the nation.
As stated in the plea,
“However, upon retirement, they are left to secure their livelihood without state financial assistance in retirement benefits equal to those of other government employees,”
The statement further added,
“After transitioning from their service, SSCOs must reintegrate into civilian life independently, lacking support, regular financial assistance, or viable job prospects from the government.”
The petitioners have served or are expected to serve in commissioned positions for a period ranging from 5 to 14 years. In the case of Short Service Commissioned Officers (SSCOs), their commissioned service can only extend up to 5, 10, or a maximum of 14 years in exceptional cases where an extension granted (excluding the one-year pre-commissioning training period for most SSCOs).
Currently, the Old Pension Scheme applicable to commissioned officers who have served a minimum of 20 years. When the New Pension Scheme (NPS) implemented in January 2004, SSCOs initially excluded from its coverage.
According to the petition, there approximately 1.5-1.6 crore government employees at the central and state levels in the country. Among this considerable number, a distinct group of about 10,000-12,000 SSCOs, including the petitioners, have been deprived of all forms of post-retirement pensionary benefits as well as the advantages offered by the Contributory Provident Funds (CPF).
It asserted that,
“This situation constitutes a stark violation of their right to equality and fair treatment, as well as an infringement upon their fundamental right to a dignified livelihood.”
Major Kavish Aggarwala, identified as the primary petitioner in the case, informed that their fight is based on the principles of equality outlined in Article 14 of the Constitution.
He expressed,
“One government official out of almost 1,500 is being denied the advantages of NPS/CPF. SSC officers bear equal responsibility in defending the nation as PC (Permanent Commissioned) officers. There is no justification for treating SSC officers so unfairly, not just in comparison to PC officers but also in contrast to other civilian government employees.”
Aggarwala emphasized the significant impact of this benefit disparity on SSCOs.
He noted,
“The situation is incredibly stressful for SSC officers nearing release or those recently discharged. Numerous individuals experience sleepless nights due to the lack of job security.”
Aggarwala clarified that this matter has been inactive mainly due to the prohibition on armed forces members forming their own associations. However, he informed that in August of the previous year, a WhatsApp group formed to gauge interest in advancing the cause.
He remarked,
“The response was overwhelming because everyone recognized that something gravely unjust was occurring against the SSCO community.”
According to the petition, Permanent Commissioned officers entitled to lifelong retirement benefits, including a pension under the OPS, free medical facilities, and other ancillary benefits. In contrast, Short Service Commissioned Officers (SSCOs) are denied these post-retirement benefits.
Read Also: ‘SSC Recruitment May Be Cancelled, If the Corruption is Proved’: Calcutta HC
The plea argues,
“There is no significant difference between SSCOs and PC officers in terms of selection procedures, physical and medical standards, mandatory tests, postings, duties, and liabilities.”
The petition claims,
“SSCOs are subject to the same risks and responsibilities as PC officers, such as deployment in battlefields, warzones, and counter-intelligence or counter-terrorist operations. Despite these similarities, SSCOs are left facing financial insecurity after retirement, unlike their permanent counterparts.”
The petition also emphasizes, the unreasonable financial insecurity and loss experienced by SSCOs. It states that SSCOs serving for 14 years suffer a loss of approximately Rs 20-25 lakh, while those serving 10 and 5 years suffer losses of around Rs 10-15 lakh and Rs 5-8 lakh, respectively, solely because they are not granted the benefits of the National Pension System (NPS) or Contributory Provident Fund.
Furthermore, the plea highlights the lack of provisions for lateral absorption of SSCOs into other government jobs, resulting in significantly long periods of unemployment and a lack of social or financial security after release or retirement from their respective services.
In addition, the petition highlights that the Defence Accounts Department Office Manual Part V For CDA (Funds) (Revised Edition 2016), issued by the government, states that a Contributory Provident Fund should be provided for non-pensionable employees of the Armed Forces.
Therefore, the petition argues that the petitioners and other Short Service Commissioned Officers (SSCOs) should receive government contributions to their Contributory Provident Fund accounts from the beginning of their service as SSCOs. However, the plea notes that SSCOs are not granted this benefit, which leads to “serious financial insecurity after retirement until they are able to find a well-paying job to support their families.”
Instead, the government deducts monthly contributions from SSCOs under the Defence Services Officers’ Provident Fund, which a non-contributory provident fund.
Furthermore, the petition highlights a 2015 report by the Raksha Mantri’s Committee of Experts, titled,
“Review of Service and Pension Matters Including Potential Disputes, Minimizing Litigation and Strengthening Institutional Mechanisms Related to Redressal of Grievances.”
The report recommends considering a Contributory Pension Scheme, similar to the New Pension System, for all SSC officers who serve for a minimum period of 10 years. Alternatively, it suggests extending the New Pension System (NPS) to the SSC scheme of the defence services.
The petition concludes,
“However, this recommendation has not been implemented to date, leaving the petitioners and other SSCOs in a state of uncertainty,”