Dismissal of JCO Automatically Forfeits Pension — No Separate Order Required: Supreme Court

“Regulation 113(a) makes dismissal by court martial sufficient to deny pension — Discretionary relief rests solely with the President”, In a judgment that definitively settles the legal position on pension entitlement of dismissed Junior Commissioned Officers (JCOs) in the Army, the Supreme Court held that dismissal from service by way of court martial automatically results in forfeiture of pensionary benefits under Regulation 113(a) of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961. The Court clarified that no separate or express order of forfeiture is required in such cases.

Setting aside the order of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), which had erroneously granted pension to the deceased JCO based on a precedent applicable only to Commissioned Officers, the Supreme Court allowed the Union of India’s appeal but refused to recover the amounts already paid, taking note of the respondent's death and delay in filing the appeal.

“Regulation 113(a) applies to JCOs, and not Regulation 16(a) which governs Commissioned Officers”

The matter arose from a long-standing pension dispute involving Ex Naib Risaldar Mahipal Singh Tanwar, a JCO who was dismissed from service in 1967 after a General Court Martial. No order was passed at the time regarding forfeiture of pension, which led the respondent to claim that he continued to be eligible for pensionary benefits.

The Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Mumbai, by relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Major G.S. Sodhi v. Union of India (1991) 2 SCC 371, granted pensionary benefits on the ground that there was no specific forfeiture order.

The Supreme Court categorically rejected this reasoning:

“It is not in dispute that the first respondent was a JCO and therefore, not Regulation 16(a) but Regulation 113(a) of the 1961 Regulations was applicable… In these circumstances… no specific order regarding forfeiture of pension was required.”

The Court clarified that Major G.S. Sodhi dealt with Regulation 16(a) which applies exclusively to Commissioned Officers, and cannot be extended to JCOs governed by Regulation 113(a).

“Dismissal itself leads to ineligibility — Presidential discretion the only exception”

The Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan explained that under Regulation 113(a), dismissal of a JCO ipso facto results in the loss of pension and gratuity, unless the President of India, in exceptional circumstances, exercises discretion to grant a service pension.

Quoting from Union of India v. Subedar Ram Narain, (1998) 8 SCC 52, the Court reaffirmed:

“A person like the respondent to whom Regulation 113(a) applies will not be entitled to receive any pension on an order of his dismissal being passed… unlike Regulation 16(a), in the case of JCOs, dismissal under the Army Act would ipso facto render him ineligible for pension.”

Thus, the legal requirement of a specific order of forfeiture does not apply in the case of JCOs or other enrolled personnel.

“Tribunal erred in applying precedent meant for Commissioned Officers”

The Supreme Court found that the AFT committed a serious error of law by extending the benefit of a judgment applicable to Commissioned Officers under a different regulatory framework. The Court held:

“The decision in Major G.S. Sodhi… is not applicable because the first respondent was a JCO and Regulation 16(a) does not apply to a JCO as was clarified in Subedar Ram Narain.”

Accordingly, the Tribunal’s order granting pension was held to be legally unsustainable.

“No recovery of pension already paid — respondent died during litigation”

In a balanced exercise of equitable discretion, the Court declined to order recovery of pensionary arrears already paid to the respondent during the pendency of the appeal. The Court noted:

“This appeal was filed with some delay and, before any interim order could be passed… the first respondent was paid arrears… and the first respondent is no more alive.”

Accordingly, while the Tribunal’s order was set aside, the amounts already disbursed were not directed to be recovered, thereby preventing hardship to the legal heirs of the deceased.

Regulation 113(a) Prevails — Dismissal Ends Pension Rights

The judgment reiterates the distinction between pension rules for Commissioned Officers and Junior Commissioned Officers, emphasising that:

• Regulation 113(a) governs JCOs and provides for automatic forfeiture upon dismissal.
• Regulation 16(a) applies only to Commissioned Officers and requires an express order for forfeiture.
• The Armed Forces Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by applying the wrong provision and misreading precedent.
• Equitable considerations, including delay in appeal and death of the respondent, justified non-recovery of already paid sums.

Date of Decision: 13 January 2026