Navy Submarine Pay and Pension Dispute: A Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court, in the case of N.N. Godfred & Others v. Union of India & Others, delivered a significant ruling concerning the inclusion of Submarine Pay in the computation of service pensions for retired sailors of the Indian Navy. The case revolved around the interpretation of whether the additional pay granted to submariners, due to the hazardous nature of their job, should be considered part of their basic pay for pension calculations.

Background of the Case

The appellants, three retired Chief Petty Officers of the Indian Navy, superannuated on January 31, 1983. They had served in the Submarine Arm and were receiving Submarine Pay due to the dangerous working conditions. However, when their pension was computed, Submarine Pay was excluded from their last drawn pay.

Their plea to include Submarine Pay in pension calculations was initially rejected by the authorities. The Armed Forces Tribunal, in its 2010 order, held that Submarine Pay was an allowance and could not be included in pension computation.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioners’ Arguments

• Submarine Pay was a part of their basic pay as per the Navy Instructions.
• The Last Pay Drawn Certificate showed Submarine Pay under the category of “Pay”.
• Allowances and additional pay for hazardous duties should be included in pension computation.
• Submarine Pay was distinct from allowances, as listed separately in Navy regulations.

Respondents’ Arguments

• Submarine Pay was classified as an “allowance” under Navy regulations.
• Only the basic pay was included in pension calculations, as per pension rules.
• The Fifth Pay Commission categorized Submarine Pay as a special allowance.
• Revisions in pay scales post-1983 did not include Submarine Pay as part of pensionable emoluments.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Court examined the relevant regulations and past instructions regarding Submarine Pay and ruled:

• Submarine Pay was a part of “Pay” for all purposes, including pension calculations.
• Navy Instructions No. 2/S/74 issued in 1974, applicable to the appellants, did not exclude Submarine Pay from pensionable emoluments.
• The government’s argument that later revisions excluded Submarine Pay was irrelevant, as those changes took effect after the appellants’ retirement.
• Past pay commissions had maintained a distinction between Submarine Pay and other allowances.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal and ruled in favor of the appellants. It directed that Submarine Pay should be included in the pension computation of the retired sailors.

This ruling reinforces the principle that service-related pay components should be considered for pension benefits, ensuring fair treatment of military personnel who have served under hazardous conditions.

Petitioner Name: N.N. Godfred & Others.
Respondent Name: Union of India & Others.
Judgment By: Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, Justice Indu Malhotra.
Place Of Incident: New Delhi.
Judgment Date: 11-07-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: N.N. Godfred & Other vs Union of India & Oth Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 11-07-2018.pdf