The court held that it cannot expand or rewrite the scope of a previously settled judgment which established an equitable balance between pensioners based on prior lump-sum settlements, confirming that retirees are only entitled to the specific restoration of commuted benefits as previously adjudicated.

1. This writ petition raises, before this Court, a very limited issue, for the second time.

2. The lis, and prior history of the litigation

2.1 The dispute relates to order dated 16 October 2009 issued by the Cabinet Secretariat. Personnel Below Officer Rank¹“PBORs”, hereinafter in the Special Frontier Force²"SFF", hereinafter were, by the said order, extended retired benefits at par with Group Y PBORs of the Indian Army. The order was, however, made effective from 1 January 2009. In other words, only PBORs of the SFF who retired on or after 1 January 2009 were, by the said order, granted pensionary benefits at par with the Indian Army.

2.2 The petitioner-Union seeks, by this writ petition, to espouse the cause of PBORs in the SFF who retired prior to 1 January 2009. The precise claim, in the writ petition, is that the fixation of 1 January 2009 as the cut-off date for being extended the benefit of the order dated 16 October 2009 is arbitrary, and that the benefit of the order should also extend to PBORs of the SFF who retired prior to 1 January 2009.

2.3 Espousing the very same cause, the petitioner-Union had earlier approached this Court by way of WP (C) 1335/2012³Ex-Servicemen Welfare Union v. Union of India. An earlier Division Bench of this Court, speaking through none less than S. Ravindra Bhat, J (as his Lordship then was), disposed of the writ petition by judgment dated 29 January 2016⁴228 (2016) DLT 206 (DB). Para 1 of the judgment encapsulates the issue in controversy thus:

“In this petition, the grievance urged is that of cut-off date (of 01.01.2009) envisioned by the order of the Cabinet Secretariat, Central Government dated 16.10.2009 granting pension and pensionary benefits to Special Frontier Force “SFF” personnel “at par with the Indian Army Group ‘Y’ PBORs”. They further seek consequential directions that pre 01.01.2009 veterans/retirees of the SFF should be granted service pension in accordance with the said order of 16.10.2009, disregarding the cut-off date. In short, the petitioners' claim that by imposing the cut-off date for the reimbursement of pensionary and other retirement benefits, the Central Government has discriminated against the pre 01.01.2009 retirees.”

The judgment concludes thus⁵as reported in SCC OnLine:

“39. This court is of the opinion that the introduction of 01.01.2009 as a cut-off in the light of the above discussion, is impermissible classification. There is no justification why this differentia is introduced, given that both pre and post 2009 SFF retirees performed the same duties and stood to benefit in terms of rank parity with Army personnel, for purposes of pensionary benefits, since 1985. Arguendo some basis for such differentia, absolutely no rationale is shown for such differentiation with the object sought to be achieved, i.e monthly payment of pension. The mere ipse dixit that the Union would be burdened with greater monetary liability, rings hollow if seen from the perspective that lump sum payment meant a larger one-time payout, whereas monthly payment spreads liability rather than aggregates it.

40. The above declaration that the introduction of the date, i.e 01.01.2009 would, however, not be dispositive of the petition. This court is also conscious that the petitioners derived a one-time benefit-of a single sum payout-and are now seeking parity with pensioners, who would not secure such payouts, but rather be entitled to monthly pension. It is also a fact that the petitioners had the benefit of the lump sum amounts, which had greater value when they received it. In the circumstances, the court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be sub-served if the respondents ensure that like in the case of regular Army personnel, upon completion of t