![](https://bharatshakti.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/LT-BSI-Defence.gif")
A Major General who commanded an Armoured Division, served as Chief of Staff of a Corps in the Northeast and later held the key appointment of Additional Director General, Mechanised Forces in Delhi is preparing to go to court – not over a promotion or appointment, but to secure what he says is his legitimate pension entitlement.
The case highlights a peculiar anomaly in the post-retirement pay structure of senior Army officers, where pensionary benefits can leave a Major General drawing less than an officer of the rank of Brigadier.
Maj Gen Ranjan Chand (Retd) is among a growing number of affected officers challenging the manner in which the Ministry of Defence has dealt with the anomaly. He says the Ministry’s approval for its removal has been applied selectively to officers who had approached the courts, rather than extended to all similarly placed veterans.
“MoD’s approval for removal of the anomaly is selective, restricted only to officers who litigated, rather than being applied universally to all similarly affected officers. Accordingly, along with many other affected officers, we intend to approach the Court to claim our rightful dues,” Maj Gen Chand (Retd) told BharatShakti.
He is not alone. More than 200 officers of the ranks of Major General and Lieutenant General have approached legal counsel to seek similar relief, turning what began as an individual pension dispute into a wider challenge over parity and the uniform application of government orders.
Col Indrasen Singh (Retd), counsel for 82 petitioners who have already secured relief, said the next legal battle is likely to involve a much larger group.
“To get it implemented across the board, over 200 officers of the ranks of Maj and Lt Generals have approached me to file a fresh petition in the AFT to obtain a similar order, and I’m moving to the tribunal soon,” he said.
An anomaly born of the pay commission
A Brigadier in the Indian Army can, under the existing pay structure, draw higher reckonable emoluments and pension than a newly promoted Major General. The anomaly, rooted in the treatment of Military Service Pay (MSP), has persisted for years, prompting affected officers to seek legal remedies.
Military Service Pay (MSP), introduced under the Sixth Central Pay Commission and continued under the Seventh, was restricted to commissioned officers up to and including the rank of Brigadier. The arrangement was intended to recognise the distinctive demands and restrictions of military service. However, its withdrawal at Major General rank and above created an inversion in which a Brigadier could draw higher reckonable pay and pension than a senior officer.
How the disparity emerged
Under the Seventh Pay Commission structure, a Brigadier’s pay, including MSP, could reach Rs 2,33,100, while the maximum prescribed pay for a Major General without the separate MSP component was Rs 2,18,200. Since MSP counted towards dearness allowance and pension, the anomaly affected both serving pay and retirement benefits. Equivalent ranks in the Navy and Air Force, including Rear Admirals and Air Vice Marshals, faced the same structural issue.
The issue is not simply about the relative salaries of two ranks. It concerns the principle that promotion to a higher rank should not result in an adverse financial position compared with an immediate junior, particularly when pension benefits are also affected.
The AFT ruling
On March 14, 2023, the Armed Forces Tribunal’s Principal Bench allowed petitions filed by Major General-rank officers and equivalent ranks in the Navy and Air Force. The tribunal directed the government to step up the petitioners’ pay and pension at par with their immediate juniors and to provide arrears and consequential benefits.
The tribunal allowed a batch of 10 petitions, according to the petitioners’ counsel, Col Indrasen Singh (Retd). The tribunal observed that the issue of pay and pension disparity between Major Generals and equivalent rank officers, and Brigadiers and their equivalents in the Navy and Air Force, had been pending with the government since 2019. The ruling established a legal basis for addressing the anomaly. Its implementation, however, became the subject of a prolonged dispute.
The legal impasse
The government in one such case involving Air Vice Marshal Laxmi Narayan Sharma, challenged the tribunal’s decision before the Delhi High Court, which admitted the petition but did not stay the AFT ruling. The tribunal later permitted conditional implementation after petitioners furnished undertakings that they would abide by any subsequent High Court decision. Despite execution directions, implementation remained pending, prompting around 82 affected officers to file contempt petitions against senior officials, including the Defence Secretary and the Controller General of Defence Accounts.
Government relief for 82 officers
Following contempt notices, the Ministry of Defence issued an order in August 2026 to step up the pay and pension of the litigating officers. The difference is to be treated as personal pay while counting as pay for all purposes, with arrears and consequential pension benefits. The arrangement is conditional on undertakings to refund the additional amounts if a later judicial ruling overturns the decision. Similar orders have reportedly been issued for successful litigants in the Navy and Air Force.
Relief for some, but not for all
The government’s decision has resolved the immediate financial issue for the officers covered by the order. However, it has raised a wider question over the treatment of veterans who face the same pay anomaly but did not approach the courts.
Col Indrasen Singh argues that the government should extend the benefit to all similarly placed Major Generals and equivalent officers in the Navy and Air Force, rather than requiring each officer to initiate litigation.
“It’s, however, ironic that the government has issued the order to step up the pay/pension of only those Maj Gen who have obtained favourable orders from the High Court/AFT but not all similarly situated officers,” Singh said in his brief to BharatShakti.
He added that the government should have issued similar orders across the board for all officers facing the same circumstances.
The issue has prompted other veterans to consider legal action.
Why the dispute is widening
The central controversy is that the relief has not automatically been extended to every similarly placed officer. Col Singh said more than 200 officers of Major and Lieutenant General rank had approached legal counsels to seek a fresh petition before the AFT. Other veterans have questioned why officers meeting the same criteria should be required to litigate separately.
A second legal challenge
The dispute has also generated a separate legal challenge concerning the principle of pay parity.
Brig Anil Srivastava (Retd), counsel before the AFT, said he had filed a writ petition concerning 72 General Officers against the tribunal’s March 14, 2023 judgment.
His contention is that simply equalising the pay and pension of General Officers with Brigadiers does not fully address the financial consequences of promotion.
“Out of 100 Brigadiers, only 7 to 10% of officers get selected to Gen Officers rank, whereas you are equalising their pay/pension with that of feeder rank of Brig,” Srivastava said.
He argued that the earlier pay structure had maintained a difference through notional MSP for General Officers, which was subsequently withdrawn under the Seventh Pay Commission.
“Until the 6th CPC, Gen Officers were given Notional MSP whereby difference in Pay and Pension was maintained. How ever with effect from 7th Pay Commission, the Notional MSP granted to Gen Officers was withdrawn; hence the Anomalous situation,” he said.
Srivastava also said he had moved the AFT on behalf of 250 officers and filed an execution petition, but the government had not implemented the order even after three years.
His position introduces a second dimension to the dispute: whether the corrective measure should merely prevent a Major General from drawing less than a Brigadier or also preserve a meaningful financial distinction between the higher rank and its feeder rank.
The public-interest question
The issue extends beyond arrears. It concerns equal treatment, administrative accountability and the burden placed on retired personnel. If government records can identify officers affected by the same pay structure, a general policy solution could reduce repeated litigation, subject to the outcome of pending judicial proceedings. The August 2026 order provides relief to the litigants, but the broader structural anomaly remains unresolved.
The veteran’s perspective
Air Vice Marshal Manmohan Bahadur (Retd), writing on the issue, has questioned the government’s approach to military pay and pension grievances.
He argues that officers who have spent their working lives serving the country should not be required to spend their retirement pursuing court proceedings to obtain benefits that have already been granted to similarly placed colleagues.
“Hundreds of two & three star officers are planning to go to court for getting pay & pension arrears – post a favourable judicial order for 82 offrs who litigated. Can the executive & judiciary (via suo moto action) avoid this awful ‘spectacle’?” Bahadur wrote in a social media post ‘X’.
Brig SK Chatterji (Retd) described the government’s approach as insensitive.
“Granting the raise plus arrears to only the 82 Generals and equivalent officers should apply to other officers fulfilling the same criterion as these 82,” he said.
“To now wait for all the other affected officers to go to the courts and obtain another similar ruling defies logic,” he added.
The question before the government
The August 2026 order provides relief to the litigating officers, but it does not automatically settle the underlying structural issue across the armed forces.
The government will have to address the implications of the pending legal challenge, the scope of the AFT’s directions and the eligibility of officers who have not yet approached the courts. A broader administrative resolution could reduce the need for repeated litigation, subject to the outcome of the judicial proceedings.
For the veterans, the issue is not simply about retrospective financial gain. It concerns whether promotion should carry a financial disadvantage and whether similarly placed officers should receive equal treatment without having to undertake individual legal battles.
The case thus raises a fundamental question of public administration: when a pay anomaly is recognised, and corrective relief is granted, should the burden of securing that relief remain with each affected veteran or should the state take the initiative to address the problem across the affected group?
The answer will have implications not only for the 82 officers who have received relief, but also for hundreds of other serving and retired personnel who may be similarly placed.
The arguments reflect a concern that goes beyond the value of arrears or the calculation of pension. They focus on equal treatment, administrative accountability and the responsibility to resolve a recognised anomaly comprehensively.
Ravi Shankar
Dr Ravi Shankar has over two decades of experience in communications, print journalism, electronic media, documentary film making and new media.
He makes regular appearances on national television news channels as a commentator and analyst on current and political affairs. Apart from being an acknowledged Journalist, he has been a passionate newsroom manager bringing a wide range of journalistic experience from past associations with India’s leading media conglomerates (Times of India group and India Today group) and had led global news-gathering operations at world’s biggest multimedia news agency- ANI-Reuters. He has covered Parliament extensively over the past several years. Widely traveled, he has covered several summits as part of media delegation accompanying the Indian President, Vice President, Prime Minister, External Affairs Minister and Finance Minister across Asia, Africa and Europe.
