Hyderabad, November 13, 2026: The Telangana High Court has held that ex-servicemen re-employed in civilian government posts are not entitled to automatic protection of their last-drawn pay in the Armed Forces when their initial salary is fixed in the new employment. A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda dismissed a writ petition filed by former Indian Army and Air Force personnel who had joined the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) as Social Security Assistants.
The petitioners had served between 18 and 20 years in the Armed Forces and retired before attaining the age of 55. They were subsequently appointed under the ex-servicemen quota in EPFO between 2006 and 2012. They contended that their initial pay in the civilian post should have been fixed at par with the last pay drawn by them in the Defence Services. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Hyderabad Bench, had rejected their original application and a subsequent review application in 2018. The High Court upheld those orders.
Petitioners’ Arguments and Applicable Rules
The petitioners relied on the Central Civil Services (Fixation of Pay of Re-employed Pensioners) Orders, 1986, as amended by a Department of Personnel and Training Office Memorandum dated 5 April 2010. Specifically, they invoked paragraph 4(d)(i), which provides that in the case of ex-servicemen who held posts below the rank of Commissioned Officer and retired before the age of 55, the entire pension and the pension equivalent of retirement benefits shall be ignored while fixing initial pay on re-employment. They argued that this provision entitled them to pay fixation based on their last-drawn defence salary.
The respondents maintained that while pensionary benefits are to be ignored, the applicable rules and instructions do not confer any right to protect the last pay drawn in the Defence Services. Initial pay is to be fixed at the entry pay in the revised pay structure applicable to direct recruits with effect from 1 January 2006.
High Court’s Reasoning
The Division Bench held that the petitioners had failed to establish any legally enforceable right to claim fixation of their initial pay at par with the last pay drawn in the Defence Services. It observed that the authorities had fixed the pay in accordance with the applicable rules and instructions governing re-employment of ex-servicemen who held posts below Commissioned Officer rank. The Court stated:
“…The petitioners have not been able to demonstrate that the fixation of their initial pay by the respondents is contrary to any mandatory provision of the applicable rules. … The contention that the petitioners are entitled to protection of the last pay drawn by them in the Defence Services, merely because their pensionary benefits are required to be ignored, is devoid of merit.”
The Bench further noted that ignoring pension for the purpose of initial pay fixation does not create an independent right to protect the last-drawn Armed Forces pay.
Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent
The High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India and Others v. Anil Prasad (2022). In that case, the Supreme Court clarified that on re-employment in government service, an Armed Forces employee is not entitled to pay scales at par with the last-drawn pay in the Armed Forces. The reference to the last-drawn pay operates only as a ceiling to ensure that the pay computed in the civil post does not exceed the basic pay (including deferred pay but excluding other emoluments) last drawn in the Armed Forces. It does not confer an independent right to pay protection.
Although Anil Prasad was rendered in the context of paragraph 8 of the 1986 Orders (relating to Emergency Commissioned Officers and Short Service Commissioned Officers), the Telangana High Court held that the underlying principle — that protection of last-drawn pay cannot be claimed as a matter of right in the absence of a specific provision — was applicable to the present case involving personnel below Commissioned Officer rank.
The Court also upheld the CAT’s dismissal of the review application, observing that review cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed and the CAT’s orders were confirmed.
Implications
The ruling reaffirms that re-employed ex-servicemen, particularly those who held posts below Commissioned Officer rank and retired before the age of 55, cannot automatically claim parity with their last military pay when joining civilian government employment. Pay fixation continues to be governed by the specific provisions of the CCS (Fixation of Pay of Re-employed Pensioners) Orders, 1986, and related DoPT instructions. While pension is ignored for the purpose of fixing initial pay, this does not translate into a right to protect the last-drawn defence salary.
The decision is consistent with the Supreme Court’s settled position and is likely to guide similar claims by ex-servicemen seeking re-employment in central government organisations.
