In a recent development, the Supreme Court of India has raised pertinent questions regarding the one-time pensionary benefits granted to retired women Airforce officers. The court's query stems from concerns raised by women officers regarding the accuracy of pension calculations following previous directions from the Apex Court.

The legal saga dates back to 2022 when the Apex Court, exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution, directed the Indian Air Force (IAF) to consider 32 Women Short Service Commission Officers (WSSCOs) for the grant of one-time pensionary benefits. These officers, released between December 2006 and December 2009, were not initially considered for Permanent Commission (PC). The Court's decision was influenced by a prior judgment (Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Poonia) and aimed to rectify perceived injustices.

However, recent developments indicate discrepancies in implementing the Court's directives. The petitioners have raised valid concerns, including the computation period (15 years instead of 20 years), lack of notional salary consideration, incorrect salary calculation based on outdated data, absence of increments, and erroneous commutation factors. These discrepancies challenge the essence of the Court's order and demand clarity from the authorities.

During the recent hearing, the Union's counsel emphasized that pension calculations were revised as per One Rank One Pension (OROP) guidelines, with increments factored at 3% per year of basic salary. However, the Court reminded the counsel of the specific 20-year service computation outlined in its directions, indicating a potential misunderstanding or oversight in implementation.

The Court's inclination towards equity and fairness is evident in its approach. It seeks to bridge the gap between legal directives and practical implementations, ensuring that deserving officers receive rightful benefits without undue delay or discrepancies.

The ongoing legal discourse reflects broader themes of gender equity, military service entitlements, and adherence to judicial directives. It underscores the importance of meticulous implementation of legal judgments, especially concerning vital matters like pensionary benefits affecting retired personnel.

The upcoming hearing scheduled for April 15 signals a pivotal moment for resolving these issues. The Court's focus on understanding the nuances of pension calculations and clarifying potential misconceptions highlights its commitment to justice and fairness for all stakeholders.

Case: Wg Cdr AU Tayyaba (Retd) and Others vs. UOI 

Civil Appeal Nos 79-82 of 2012.