The Supreme Court declined to hear ex-servicemen’s challenge against pay-fixation rules, calling it a matter for authorities. Veterans can now approach the Central Administrative Tribunal if dissatisfied with the decision.
The Supreme Court of India on Thursday declined to entertain a petition filed by a group of ex-servicemen who challenged the validity of existing pay-fixation rules, arguing that the current system unfairly disadvantages Army veterans who take up civil service jobs after retirement.
A Bench led by Chief Justice Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi, chose not to examine the matter directly. However, the Court gave liberty to advocate Ashwini Upadhyay to submit a formal representation before the concerned authorities. The Bench also clarified that the authorities should consider the issue and take a decision as early as possible.
ALSO READ: CJI Chandrachud Passes Urgent Order for 92 Year Old Army Veteran Battling Cancer
Importantly, the Court noted that if the petitioners remain dissatisfied with the outcome of such representation, they are free to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) for appropriate relief.
The petition was led by Baidya Nath Choudhary and five other former defence personnel, who had earlier served as Personnel Below Officer Rank (PBORs). After retiring from the armed forces, they joined various government organisations, including departments like the Income Tax Department and the Food Corporation of India.
Their plea, filed through advocate-on-record Ashwani Dubey, specifically challenged Rule 8 of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016, along with a Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) memorandum dated May 1, 2017.
According to the petitioners, the current framework forces re-employed veterans to begin at the “minimum pay level” of the new post, regardless of their past service, experience, or last drawn salary in the armed forces. They argued that such “mechanical fixation” ignores their long years of service in the Army, Navy, or Air Force.
The plea further highlighted that this system places ex-servicemen in a financially disadvantageous position. In several cases, their combined earnings after joining civil roles are lower or less beneficial than what they received during active service. The petition described this as creating a “worse-off” situation for veterans.
Additionally, the petitioners alleged “hostile discrimination”, pointing out that while some public sector banks extend pay protection benefits to re-employed ex-servicemen, similar safeguards are not provided in other government departments. This, they argued, creates an unequal and arbitrary system.
The plea strongly contended that treating experienced veterans—many of whom have served for 15 to 20 years—on par with “fresh entrants” is inherently unfair and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to equality.
While the Supreme Court refrained from intervening at this stage, its direction to seek remedies through administrative channels and the Central Administrative Tribunal leaves the issue open for further legal scrutiny.
Click Here to Read More On Army Veterans
