BEFORE THE ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL (PB) NEW DELHI

O.A. No. /2026

IN THE MATTER OF:

Sgt Raman Sharma (Retd) ... Applicant

(Ser NO. 909635-F)
Versus
Union of India & Ors. -- Respondents

[Compilation I & II]

(For Index kindly see inside)

Brajesh Kumar
Place: New Delhi Advocate for Applicant
Dated: .2026 H. No – RZF-100/9-10,
Gali no -41, Goyal Apartment
Sadh Nagar-II, Palam
New Delhi - 110045
Mob: 9546158675/8149730282
Email:
[Link]@[Link]
 BEFORE THE ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL (PB) NEW DELHI
O.A. No……………2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
Sgt Raman Sharma (Retd) ... Applicant
(Ser NO. 909635-F)
Versus
Union of India & Ors. -- Respondents
INDEX
Sl. Description of documents/proceedings relied Page No.
No From To
Compilation I
1. Memo of Parties
2. Synopsis and list of dates and events.
3. Original Application under Section 14 of the Armed
Forces Act, 2007, along with Affidavit.
Compilation II
4. Annexure A-1
True copy of PPO issued to the applicant.
5. Misc Application under Sec 22 of AFT Act for
condonation of along with affidavit.
6. VAKALATNAMA

Brajesh Kumar
Place: New Delhi Advocate for Applicant
Dated: .2026 H. No – RZF-100/9-10,
Gali no -41, Goyal Apartment
Sadh Nagar-II, Palam
New Delhi - 110045
Mob: 9546158675/8149730282
Email:
[Link]@[Link]
BEFORE THE ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL (PB) NEW DELHI
 O.A. No……….…...2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
Sgt Raman Sharma (Retd) ... Applicant
(Ser NO. 909635-F)
Versus
Union of India & Ors. -- Respondents
MEMO OF PARTIES
Sgt Raman Sharma (Retd) (Ser NO. 909635-F), Aged about 42 years, S/o-
Prem Chand Sharma, R/o-House No. RZ-38, Street NO.-9 A, Raj Nagar Part
2, Palam, New Delhi -110077. …...APPLICANT
VERSUS

1. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH SECRETARY, DMA
SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110011
2. CHIEF OF THE AIR STAFF, AIR HQ (VB)
RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI -110106
3. DTE OF AIR VETERANS (DAV)
PD (AV), AUDIT AND ACCOUNTS
SUBROTO PARK, NEW DELHI-110010
4. JCDA, Subroto Park
New Delhi-110010
FILED BY:

Brajesh Kumar
Place: New Delhi Advocate for Applicant
Dated: .2026 H. No – RZF-100/9-10,
Gali no -41, Goyal Apartment
Sadh Nagar-II, Palam
New Delhi - 110045
Mob: 9546158675/8149730282
Email:
[Link]@[Link]
 SYNOPSIS

1. The Applicants herein is most aggrieved by the wrongful, unfair,

discriminatory, illegal and unconstitutional actions of the Respondents
whereby they have not included X-Pay and Military Service Pay (MSP)
along with DA as ‘Reckonable Emoluments’ for the purpose of
calculating Leave encashment of his retiral benefits.

2. As per Defence Service Leave Regulation (DSLR), Air Force Personnel,

which include the Applicants herein, can accumulate upto 30 days Annual
Leave every year. As policy in vogue, at the time of his retirement, the Air
Force Personnel can encash 300 days of their accumulated annual leave.
On retirement of an Air Force personnel, is to suo moto pay Leave
Encashment to such personnel, subject to the stipulated maximum limit of
300 days. In addition, while in service, Air Force personnel are permitted
to encash upto 10 days from their accumulated annual leave at the time of
availing Leave Concession (LTC), subject to a maximum of 60 days in
their service career.

3. Historically, on account of the special conditions of service experienced

by them, Armed Forces Personnel have always been given an ‘edge in
pay’ over civilian pay scales. Prior to the III Central pay Commission
(CPC) Defence Service personal were paid a special Disturbance
Allowance, which in the III CPC (effective from 1976) was merged into
the pay scale thereby providing an ‘edge in pay’ to the Armed Forces
Personnel vis-à-vis their civilian counterparts therefore, which encashing
leave the Armed forces personnel were getting the benefit of this ‘edge in
pay’.
4. The VI CPC removed the ‘Rank Pay’, but for maintaining this ‘edge in
pay’ for armed force personnel, it recommended Military Service pay
(MSP) to all officers upto the rank of Brigadier (and its equivalent in the
IAF & Navy), all JCOs/Ors and Military Nursing Service officers.
Further, the VI CPC categorically state the X-Pay & MSP to be an
additional element of pay. Hence, while calculating Leave Encashment,
the Respondents again gave the benefit of this ‘edge in pay’ to Armed
Force Personnel by including MSP as reckonable emolument.

5. The VII CPC continued this ‘edge in pay’ to Armed Forces Personnel over
civilian pay scales by recommending an enhanced amount of MSP to
Armed Forces Personnel, which was Rs. 5200/- for JCOs/ORs. The
recommendations of the VII CPC were implemented in toto by the Central
Govt by issuing revised Pay Rules in respect of the three services of the
armed forces on 03.05.2017, and the recommendations of the VII CPC
were implemented with effect from 01.01.2016. Upon implementation, the
Respondents continued to pay Leave Encashment by including MSP as
reckonable emolument to Air force personnel who went on retirement
/PSS on after 01.01.2016. However, during 2018 the Respondent Started
objecting to inclusion of MSP as reckonable emolument for payment of
Leave Encashment stating that this was not part of the VII CPC
recommendation. They even directed to recover from all personnel who
had been paid MSP on availing Leave Encashment along with LTC after
01.01.2016.

6. Air HQ and Directorate of Military affairs, MoD took up the case several
times for inclusion of MSP in leave encashment by pointing out that
nowhere in its recommendations had the VII CPC recommended that MSP
be not taken as Reckonable emolument for the purpose of calculating
Leave Encashment, but the same was Stopped including MSP in Leave
Encashment to Air Force Personnel as a result of this, all Applicants, who
had not less than 300 days of accumulate leave at the time of their
retirement /PPS, have been paid Rs. 52,000/- less in their leave
encashment. They also lost out on the DA as per rate prevalent at the time
their retirement / PSS, which they would have received on Rs. 52,000/- In
addition, each time the Applicant had encashed 10 days of leave while
availing LTC after 01.01.2016, the Respondent did not include MSP and
DA thereon.
LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS
DATE EVENT
Prior to On account of their service conditions, Armed Forces
01.01.1976 Personnel were being paid ‘Special Disturbance Allowance’
so that they have an ‘edge In pay’ over civilian pay scales.
01.01.1976 On the Recommendation of the III CPC, the Special
Disturbance Allowance’ was merged into the pay Scales of
the armed forces personnel. Consequently, they were getting
the benefit of this ‘edge in pay’ at the time of encashment of
their accumulated leave.
01.01.1986 On the Recommendation of IV CPC, Rank Pay Was
introduced for Personal of the armed forces to Maintain the
‘edge in pay’ vis-à-vis civilian counterparts. The Rank Pay
was included as Reckonable Emolument for calculating
Leave Encashment.
01.01.1996 On the Recommendation of the V CPC, Rank Pay was
continued for personal, and as before Rank Pay continued to
be included as Reckonable Emolument For calculating
Leave Encashment.
28.12.2004 The Applicant was enrolled in the Indian Air Force.
01.01.2006 On the recommendations of the VI CPC, running pay scales
were introduced and the Rank Pay was done away with. To
maintain the ‘edge in pay’, in lieu of ‘Rank Pay’, ‘Military
Service Pay’ was introduced for the armed forces personnel.
While the VI CPC did not specifically recommend for the
same, MSP being an additional element of pay, it was
included as Reckonable Emolument for calculating Leave
encashment.
01.01.2016 On the recommendations of VII CPC the amount of MSP
was enhanced and continued for armed forces personnel.
Respondent continued to include MSP as Reckonable
Emolument for calculating MSP in case of AF personnel
who retired / took PSS on or after 01.01.2016.
2018 JCDA (AF) objected to inclusion of MSP for Leave
Encashment on the ground that same has not been
recommended by VII CPC.
Hence, the Original Application.
BEFORE THE ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL (PB) NEW DELHI
O.A. No……………2026

IN THE MATTER OF:

Sgt Raman Sharma (Retd) ... Applicant
(Ser NO. 909635-F)
Versus
Union of India & Ors. -- Respondents

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 14 OF

THE ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL ACT, 2007

To,
THE HON’BLE CHAIRPERSON AND HIS COMPANION MEMBER OF
THE HON’BLE ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH,
NEW DELHI
MOST RESPECTFUULY SHOWETH:

1. PARTICULARS OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AGAINST

WHICH THE APPLICATION IS MADE;
The instant Original Application has been filed by the Applicants herein
is most aggrieved by the wrongful, unfair, discriminatory, illegal and
unconstitutional actions of the Respondents whereby they have not
included X-Pay and Military Service Pay (MSP) along with DA as
‘Reckonable Emoluments’ for the purpose of calculating Leave
encashment of his retiral beneifts.
2. JURISDICTION OF THE TRIBUNAL

The Applicant is seeking relief pertaining to a policy matter on Leave

Encashment which involve financial implications and which can
effectively be dealt with at the service Headquarters at New Delhi. The
issue involved herein is matter of policy and such policy pertaining to
financial implications has been issued at the office of respondent located
 at New Delhi. All the respondents are at New Delhi. Moreover, the
applicant is also residing presently in New Delhi. Thus, Hon’ble AFT
(PB) at New Delhi, has jurisdiction to entertain the O.A.
3. LIMITATION:
A Misc Application under Sec 22 of AFT Act, 2007 has been filed for
condonation of delay in filing the instant OA.

4. FACTS OF THE CASE

4.1 That the applicant was enrolled in Indian Air Force on 28.12.2004.
Applicant discharged from service on 31.12. 2024 after rendering more
than 20 years of service. A true copy of PPO issued to the applicant is
annexed as ANNEXURE A-1.

4.2 That as per Defence Services Leave Regulations (DSLR), air force
personnel, which includes the Applicants herein, can accumulate upto
30 days Annual Leave every year. As per policy in vogue, at the time of
their superannuation / PSS, the air force personnel can encash upto 300
days of their accumulated annual leave. On superannuation / PSS of an
air force personnel, the Respondent No. is to suo moto pay Leave
Encashment to such personnel, subject to the stipulated maximum limit
of 300 days. This is invariably paid within the first week of retirement.

4.3 That, in addition, while in service Air Force personnel are permitted to
encash 10 days from their accumulated annual leave at the time of
availing Leave Concession (LTC), subject to a maximum of 60 days
in their service career.

4.4 That historically, on account of the special conditions of service

experienced by them, armed forces personnel have always been given
 an ‘edge in pay’ over civilian pay scales. Prior to the III Central Pay
Commission (CPC) defence service officers were paid a ‘Special
Disturbance Allowance’, which in the III CPC (effective from 1976) was
merged into the pay scale thereby continuing the ‘edge in pay’ to armed
forces personnel vis-à-vis their civilian counterparts. Therefore, while
encashing leave the armed forces personnel were getting the benefit of this
‘edge in pay’.

4.5. That the Ministry of Defence, GoI issued a letter No.

4(1)/2001/D(Pay/Services) dated 01.03.2004 on the subject -‘Encashment
of leave in respect of Defence Services personnel at the time of
superannuation – elements of pay to be taken into account’. In the said
letter, the GoI clarified that ‘only pay on the lines defined in FR 9(21) (a)
(i) to (iii) may be taken into account for calculating the amount of
encashment of leave. Stagnation increments, non-practice allowances and
Rank Pay of officers shall be included while calculating the amount of
leave encashment.’ Thus, this letter clarified in no uncertain terms that the
‘’edge in pay’ being given to defence service personnel is an essential
element of pay and must be included in calculating Leave Encashment.
The said FR 9(21) (a)(i) to (iii) read as follows -

(21) Pay –means amount drawn monthly by a government service as-

*(i)the pay other than special pay or pay granted in view of his
personnel qualifications, which has been sanctioned for post held by
him substantively or in an officiating capacity in a cadre and
(ii)overseas pay special pay and personnel pay and
(iii) any other emoluments which may be specially classed as pay by the
president.
 4.6. The VI CPC removed the ‘Rank Pay’, but for maintaining this ‘edge in
pay’ for armed force personnel, it recommended Military Service pay
(MSP) to all officers upto the rank of Brigadier (and its equivalent in the
IAF & NAVY), all JCOs/Ors and Military Nursing Service officers.
Further, the VI CPC categorically states that MSP and X Pay to be an
additional element of pay. Hence, while calculating Leave Encashment,
the Respondents again gave the benefit of this ‘edge in pay’ to Armed
Force Personnel by including MSP and X Pay as reckonable emolument.

4.7 That, while recommending introduction of the MSP, the VI CPC in its
Report in Para 1.2.21 of Chapter 1.2 – “Philosophy & the Guiding
Principles” stated that the specific problems faced by defence forces
personnel (viz. army, navy and air force) on account of rigours of military
life are, however, proposed to be compensated by an additional element of
pay termed Military Service Pay (MSP). Thus, the VI CPC has
specifically clarified the nature of MSP, that is it (MSP) is an additional
element of Pay. Being an element of Pay, MSP has to be included as
Reckonable Emolument for the purpose of calculating Leave Encashment.
The said Para 1.2.21 of VI CPC Report reads as follows: -
“1.2.21 The Commission received demands from almost all the
central paramilitary and security organizations, scientific
institutions and other services seeking grant of special allowance
keeping in view the onerous nature of duties performed by them. It
was the common argument of all that their respective
organizations were performing a special job and deserved to be
granted a special allowance. The Commission is of the view that
grant of special allowance for performing the assigned duties in
respect of any organization is not justified because the same is
taken care of by the salary attached to the posts. The Government
 has, in the past, extended special allowances in various forms to
certain posts in different organizations which, in their opinion,
deserved to be paid such an allowance. The Commission is
maintaining status quo in respect of these allowances extended by
the Government in the past. Insofar as further extension of any
allowance on this account is concerned, the principle which
should be followed is that more onerous duties should result in a
relatively higher pay scale being attached to the post rather than
any special allowance. A mechanism exists for evaluating the
duties attached to different posts in an organization which should
be used to assess the appropriateness of the existing pay scale
(proposed to be substituted by grade pay and pay band) rather
than granting a special allowance for performing the normal
duties. Performance of duties beyond the normal call should, in
the revised scheme of things, result in a higher performance
related incentive. The specific problems faced by defence forces
personnel (viz. army, navy and air force) on account of rigours of
military life are, however, proposed to be compensated by an
additional element of pay termed Military Service Pay (MSP).”

4.8 That, as the X-Pay & MSP was granted as an ‘edge in pay’ to armed
forces personnel and also because it is an additional element of pay,
while paying leave encashment the Respondents gave the benefit of this
‘edge in pay’ to armed forces personnel by including MSP as reckonable
emolument for calculating Leave Encashment.

4.9. That, the VII CPC too continued this ‘edge in pay’ to armed forces
personnel over civilian pay scales by recommending continuance of MSP
as well as enhancing the amount of MSP to armed forces personnel, which
was enhanced to Rs 5,200/- for JCO/OR further, in para 6.1.28 of its
 Report the VII CPC reiterated that the VI CPC had recommended MSP as
an additional, separate element of pay.

4.10 That, the recommendations of the VII CPC in respect of the Armed Forces
Personnel were implemented by the central Govt by notifying revised pay
Rules in respect of the three services of the armed forces. In the case of
the IAF, the Pay Rules were notified on 03.05.2017 and recommendations
of the VII CPC were implemented with effect from 01.01.2016. Upon
implementation, air forces personnel who went on retirement/PSS on or
after 01.01.2016 were being paid Leave Encashment by including MSP
and X Pay as a Reckonable Emolument, as the VII CPC had held that
MSP and X Pay was an additional element of pay and also because the
VII CPC did not place any enbargo on inclusion of MSP & X Pay as
reckonable emolument for purposed of calculating Leave Encashment.

4.11 That, during 2018 the Respondent No. 3 started objecting to the inclusion
of MSP and X Pay as reckonable Emolument for payment of Leave
encashment stating that this is not part of the VII CPC recommendations
and directed that recovery be made from all retired personnel who have
been paid MSP & X Pay in their Leave Encashment. They directed to
recover from all personnel who had been paid MSP & X Pay on availing
leave Encashment along with LTC on after 01.01.2016.

4.12 That, several times the Air HQ has taken up the case for inclusion of MSP
as reckonable emolument for calculating leave encashment by clearly
bringing out that nowhere in its Report has the VII CPC recommended
exclusion of MSP from leave encashment. However, every time the case
has been rejected by stating that the VII CPC not recommended inclusion
of MSP & X Pay in leave encashment.
4.13. That, consequent to the above directions of JCDA, for the purposed of
calculating leave encashment of 300 days , only the Basic pay and the
Dearness Allowance (DA) on the Last Basic pay were taken as
reckonable emoluments and the Military service Pay (MSP) Being drawn
by them (@ Rs.5200/- per month and X Pay@ Rs 6200/- at the time of
superannuation /retirement was not taken as reckonable emolument for the
purpose of calculating Leave Encashment. Consequently, all the
Applicants were paid less than the estimated entitlement. They also lost
out on the DA (as per rate prevalent at the time of their superannuation
/PSS), which would have been paid on the MSP and X Pay amount. In
addition, the respondents have also not paid MSP every time the
Applicants encased leave along with LTC availed by them on or after
01.01.2016 consequently the Applicant has been paid less amount towards
their leave encashment.
4.14 That, the above orders of the JCDA are arbitrary and illegal for the reason
that after the VI central pay commission (CPC), the last basic pay, the last
grade pay, MSP and X Pay and the last DA on (Last Basic pay +
last grade pay + MSP), were being taken as Reckonable Emoluments
calculating stated that MSP and X-pay are an additional element of pay.
Accordingly, since then the MSP and X Pay has been an integral part of
the reckonable emoluments for the purpose of leave encashment.
4.15 That as the VII CPC has categorically stated ‘MSP and X Pay are
additional element of pay’ and also that ‘MSP and X Pay will continue to
be reckoned as Basic Pay’, it must be taken as reckonable emolument for
the purpose of calculating leave encashment. Be that as it may by its very
nomenclature, MSP and X Pay are ‘Pay’ and not an allowance. Hence,
it must be included as reckonable for the purpose of calculating Leave
Encashment.
4.16 That the applicant shall crave permission to this Hon’ble Tribunal to
put forth more facts if required during the argument.

5. GROUNDS FOR RELIEF WITH LEGAL SUBMISSION:

That, the Applicant has preferred the present Original Application on the
following grounds:
5.1 Because, the decision of the Respondents not to included MSP and X Pay
as Reckonable Emoluments for the purpose of calculating Leave
Encashment is highly unjustified, completely arbitrary and illegal.
5.2 Because, as per Defence service leave regulations (DSLR), air force
personnel, which includes the Applicants herein can accumulate upto 30
days Annual Leave every year. As per policy in vogue at the time of their
superannuation /PSS, the air force personnel can encase upto 30 days of
their accumulated annual leave. On superannuation/retirement of an air
force personnel the, Respondent is to suo moto pay Leave Encashment
such personnel, subject to the stipulated maximum limit of 300 days.

5.3 Because, as per the VII CPC, MSP and X-Pay are an additional element
of Pay. Further, by its very nomenclature, MSP is a pay and not an
allowance, Hence being an additional element of pay, MSP and X Pay
must be taken as reckonable emolument for calculating Leave
Encashment.

5.4 Because historically, on account of the conditions of service experienced

by them, armed forces personnel have always been given an edge in pay
over civilian pay scales . This ‘edge in pay’, which after the VI CPC is
being given in the form of MSP, has always been an integral part of Leave
encashment. Therefore, while encasing leave the armed forces personnel
were getting the benefit of this ‘edge in pay’.
 5.5 Because, the recommendations of the VII CPC in respect of the armed
forces personnel were implemented by the central Govt by notifying
Revised Pay Rules in respect of the three service of the armed forces. in
the case of the AF pay Rules were Notified on 03.05.2017 and the
recommendations of the VII were implemented with effect from
01.01.2016 upon implementation, Air Force Personnel who went on
retirement/ PSS on or after 01.01.2016 were being paid leave encashment
by including MSP and X-Pay as a Reckonable Emolument as there was no
embargo on inclusion of MSP as reckonable emolument for purpose of
calculating leave Encashment.

5.6 Because, the Respondents refusal to include MSP and X Pay emolument
for calculating leave encashment is without any basis. As a consequence
of this whimsical and arbitrary refusal by the Respondents the applicant
suffered financial loss in their leave Encashment.

5.7 Beacuse, in the VII CPC, which has been accepted by the Central Govt,
MSP has been specifically included for the purpose of DA and Pension.
As leave encashment is paid at the time of superannuation as a pensionary
benefit, MSP and X Pay must be included as reckonable emolument while
calculating leave Encashment. In para 10.01.14 of its Report, the VII
categorically states that leave Encashment is a pensionary benefit.

5.8 Because, even Rule 5 (3) (iii) of the Air force pay Rules , 2017, which
have been issued in implementation of the VII CPC, states that MSP will
included while computing DA and Pension.

5.9 Because, in para 5.2.22 of its Report the VII CPC has very categorically
stated that ‘MSP will continue to be reckoned as Basic Pay’ since MSP is
 reckoned as Basic Pay, it must be taken as reckonable emolument for the
purpose of calculating L.E be that as it may by its very nomenclature,
MSP is a ‘Pay’ and not an allowance. Hence, it must be included as
reckonable emolument for the purpose of calculating leave Encashment.

5.10 Because, in para 6.2.117 of VII CPC Report, which is about “Reckoning
MSP”, the commission categorically states that MSP shall not be reckoned
(c) Composite Transfer Grant. If it were the intention of the VII CPC
exclude MSP for the of LE, they would have specifically made a
recommendation in this regards they did in the case of HRA, Annual
Increments and CTG. Hence, in the absence of a specific recommendation
by the VII CPC, MSP cannot be excluded from the RE for the purpose of
calculating LE.

5.11 Because, It is pertinent to note that nowhere in its Report the VI CPC has
stated that MSP is to be taken as Reckonable Emoluments for calculating
Leave Encashment, In fact, in its Report the VI CPC has only state that
MSP will be excluded for annual increments. Since, MSP had been only
excluded for annual increments, after implementation of VI CPC, MSP
was being taken as Reckonable Emoluments for calculating leave
Encashment.

5.12 Because, Leave Encashment is nothing but deferred wages being deferred
wages, MSP which is an integral part of the pay of armed forces
personnel, must be included as Reckonable Emoluments for calculating
Leave Encashment.

5.13 Because, Rule 14 of the AF Pay Rule, 2017 specifically stipulates that
‘Arrears of pay’ would include ‘Military Service Pay’ Since, MSP was
 paid as part of arrears of pay, it stands reason that it must be paid as part
of leave Encashment as well.

5.14 Because, had the Applicants availed the leave instead of accumulating it
they would have been paid MSP during the period of leave availed.
Hence, MSP must be included as Reckonable Emoluments for the purpose
of calculating leave Encashment.

5.15 Because, officers of the rank of Air vice Marshall (AVM) are not entitle
to MSP, however, on the rank of AVM the MSP is subsumed into their
basic pay in this way, when an AVM retires, he gets the benefit to MSP in
his Leave Encashment. Thus, exclusion of MSP as reckonable emolument
for the purpose of calculating leave encashment for officers of the rank of
Air cmde and below as well as for personnel below officers Rank
(PBOR) is resulting in discrimination, which is in gross violation of the
fundamental Right to Equality enshrined under Article 14 of the
constitution of India.

5.16 Because, Leave Encashment paid at the time of superannuation is a

beneficial /welfare provision. It is meant to supplement the savings of the
retiring employee so that he can lead a comfortable retired life. It is for
this reason that clause 10 AA of sec 10 of the income tax act 1961
provides for exemption for encashment from service from inclusion in an
assesses total income. Therefore, in the absence of any specific
recommendation by the VII CPC , the provisions pertaining to leave
Encashment being a welfare Provision, must be interpreted liberally for
the benefit of the retiring personnel and MSP and X Pay must be included
in Reckonable Emoluments for the purpose of calculating Leave
Encashment.
5.17 Because, the Hon’ble supreme court has in a plethora of case held that
leave Encashment is the property of the employee, and deprivation of the
same, in part or full without any statutory provision under Article 19 of
the Constitution of India.

5.18 Because, in sub-para (b) of para 6.2.134 of its Report (Page 136), while
concluding its recommendations on the scheme for lateral of PBOR into
Central Para Military Forces, the VII CPC specifically recommends that
upon PBOR moving into CAPF the seniority and pay of the personnel
should stand protected. While doing so the Military Service pay and X
Pay shall also be taken into account so that there is no drop in salary. This
clearly implies that MSP is an integral part of Pay of service personnel,
Hence, while calculating Leave Encashment, MSP and X Pay must be
taken as Reckonable Emolument.

5.19 Because, the refusal on part of the Respondents to include MSP and X
Pay as reckonable emolument for calculating leave encashment is
completely arbitrary and whimsical black’s law Dictionary describes the
term ‘arbitrary’.

5.20 Because, it is also well settled principle of LAW in DS Nakara Case that

Article-14 condemns discrimination not only by a substantive law but

also by a law of procedure. The article also contains that all persons

similarly circumstances shall be treated like both in privileged conferred

and liabilities imposed. MSP is calculated in LE and accordingly benefit

was granted to the personnel discharge during VIth CPC, and hence it’s a
 discrimination against the personnel who discharged during VIth CPC and

such discrimination is barred in law.

6. DETAILS OF THE REMEDIES EXHAUSTED:

The applicant has not preferred any representation as the same will be an

empty exercise/formality as the issue involved herein is subject matter of

policy involving financial implication. Several personnel have

approached to the respondents for grant of relief herein prayed for,

however, the respondents have neither changed the said arbitrary policy

nor granted relief to any employee and lastly every aggrieved employee

has approached this Hon’ble Tribunal. The respondents have not yet

issued any fresh instructions in this behalf to change the policy and

therefore under such circumstances the Applicant is having no effective

remedy except to approach this Hon’ble Tribunal.

7. MATTER NOT PREVIOUSLY FILED OR PENDING WITH ANY

OTHER COURT OR BENCH OF TRIBUNAL:

Applicant further declares that in the context of the present issue he has

not previously filed any application, writ petition or suit regarding the

matter in respect of which this application has been made, before any

court or any other authority or any Bench of the Tribunal nor any such

application, writ petition or suit is pending before any of them.

8. RELIEFS SOUGHT:

In view of the facts mentioned in aforesaid Para 4 and Para 5 and in the

interest of justice, this Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to:

(a) To direct the respondents to include the MSP and X-Pay along

with DA in leave encashment and release the Balance amount after

calculating leave encashment including X Pay and MSP along with

12% interest

(b) To pass any other appropriate order or grant relief which this

Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper under facts and

circumstances of the case,

9. Interim relief if any: Nil

10. This original application is being filed in person by the Advocate on

behalf of the applicant.

11 Particulars of Bank Draft/Postal Order filed in respect of the

application fee:

12. List of Annexures: As per Index

Applicant
Dated:
Place: New Delhi
Through,

Dated: .2026 Brajesh Kumar

Place: New Delhi Advocate
 VERIFICATION

I, Sgt Raman Sharma (Retd) (Ser NO. 909635-F), Aged about 42 years, S/o-
Prem Chand Sharma, R/o-House No. RZ-38, Street NO.-9 A, Raj Nagar Part

2, Palam, New Delhi -110077, do hereby verify that the contents of paras 1 to

4 of the above Application are true to my personal knowledge and paras 5 to

12 based on the legal advice received and believed to be true. Nothing

material has been concealed and there from. The Annexure filed herewith are

true copies of their respective originals.

Verified at New Delhi on this day ___________ 2026.

Place: Delhi

Dated: / /2026 Applicant

Application through Counsel

Brajesh Kumar
Place: New Delhi Advocate for Applicant
Dated: .2026 H. No – RZF-100/9-10,
Gali no -41, Goyal Apartment
Sadh Nagar-II, Palam
New Delhi - 110045
Mob: 9546158675/8149730282
Email:
[Link]@[Link]
 IN THE ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL (PB), NEW DELHI

OA No. /2026
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Sgt Raman Sharma (Retd) ... Applicant
(Ser NO. 909635-F)
Versus
Union of India & Ors. -- Respondents

AFFIDAVIT

I, Sgt Raman Sharma (Retd) (Ser NO. 909635-F), Aged about 42 years, S/o-
Prem Chand Sharma, R/o-House No. RZ-38, Street NO.-9 A, Raj Nagar Part
2, Palam, New Delhi -110077, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as
under:-

1. That I am the applicant in the accompanying Original Application and

well conversant with the fact and circumstance of the case and
competent to swear this affidavit.

1. That the accompanying O.A. has been drafted by my Counsel on my

instruction and the contents of the O.A. has been understood by me and
the annexure filed with OA are true copy of their original.

3. That the matter has not been filed previously and not pending in any
Court/Tribunal for the same relief.

Deponent
Verification
Verified at New Delhi on this ___ day of_____2026 that the contents of
my above affidavit are true and correct and nothing has been concealed
there from.

Deponent
 IN THE HON’BLE ARMED FORCE TRIBUNAL,
PRINCIPAL BENCH, WEST BLOCK-8, NEW DELHI

OA No. /2026
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Sgt Raman Sharma (Retd) ... Applicant
(Ser NO. 909635-F)
Versus
Union of India & Ors. -- Respondents
VAKALATNAMA
I, Sgt Raman Sharma (Retd) (Ser NO. 909635-F), Aged about 42 years, S/o-
Prem Chand Sharma, R/o-House No. RZ-38, Street NO.-9 A, Raj Nagar Part
2, Palam, New Delhi -110077, applicant in the above application do here by
appoint and retain Mr. Brajesh Kumar and his associates as Legal
practitioner to appear plead and act for me/ us in the above application and to
conduct and prosecute all proceedings that may be taken in respect thereof
including Contempt of Court Application and Review Application arising
there from and application for return of documents, enter into compromising
and to draw any money payable to me/us in the said proceeding.

Signature of Party
“Accepted”

Executed in my presence on

Brajesh Kumar
Enr No. D/1352/2024
Place: New Delhi Advocate for Applicant
Dated: .2026 H. No – RZF-100/9-10,
Gali no -41, Goyal Apartment
Sadh Nagar-II, Palam
New Delhi - 110045
Mob: 9546158675/8149730282
Email:
[Link]@[Link]
 IN THE ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH
NEW DELHI
MA No. /2026
IN
OA No. /2026
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Sgt Raman Sharma (Retd) ... Applicant
(Ser NO. 909635-F)
Versus
Union of India & Ors. -- Respondents

APPLICATION U/S 22 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY OF AFT

ACT 2007 IN FILING OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION.

To,

THE HON’BLE CHAIRPERSON AND HIS COMPANION MEMBERS

OF HON’BLE ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, (PB) NEW DELHI.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH THAT:

1. That instant Original Application has been filed against arbitrary and
illegal action, of the Respondents whereby they have not included
Military Service Pay (MSP) and X -Pay along with DA as
‘Reckonable Emoluments’ for the purpose of calculating Leave
encashment of his retiral benefits.

2. That the As per Defence Service Leave Regulation (DSLR), Air Force
Personnel, which include the Applicants herein, can accumulate upto 30
days Annual Leave every year. As policy in vogue, at the time of his
retirement, the Air Force Personnel can encash 300 days of their
accumulated annual leave. On retirement of an Air Force personnel is to
suo moto pay Leave Encashment to such personnel, subject to the
stipulated maximum limit of 300 days. In addition, while in service, Air
 Force personnel are permitted to encash upto 10 days from their
accumulated annual leave at the time of availing Leave Concession
(LTC), subject to a maximum of 60 days in their service career.

3. That as per section 22 of the AFT Act 2007 the application has to be
made before the Hon’ble Armed Forces Tribunal within a period of six
months after the disposal of the application of the applicant before the
appropriate forum, in the present case there is a delay of about …….
days from the date of his discharge from service (DOD- 31 Dec 2024).
Delay in the present case is Bonafide and inadvertently as the applicant
came to know about the fact of anomaly in leave encashment during
veteran meeting.

4. That the Hon’ble Supreme Court recently in the matter of Ex Sep

Chain Singh Vs UOI &Ors vide Civil Appeal diary No. 30073/2017
decided on 11.12.2017, dealt a matter in which the OA for grant of
disability pension was rejected by the Hon’ble AFT (PB) New Delhi on
the ground that the appellant had approached the Hon’ble Tribunal
belatedly and there was no sufficient cause for condonation of delay.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “After hearing the arguments of
the parties, we are of the opinion that the aforesaid approach of the
Tribunal is clearly erroneously. It was a matter of pension, that too
disability pension, which was claimed by the appellant and in a case
life this it would be a continuous cause of action simply because of the
reason that if pension is due and payable to the appellant, the appellant
would be entitled to receive the same every month. At the most the
appellant could be denied the benefit pf past pension beyond the period
of three years. Even otherwise of pension the Tribunal should not have
taken a such hyper technical view.”
5. That the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No.
2837/2014 titled as JC-225713 A Ex Nb Sub Dharam Pal Vs UOI &
Ors vide order dated 02.05.2014 had by relied upon the judgement of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in SK Mastan Bee Vs General Manager
South Central Railway 2003 (1) SCC 184: Union of India Vs
Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648 and Civil Appeal No. 4470/2014
Madhukar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors decided on 11.04.2014
held that “ we find that the Tribunal has erred in law in declining the
claim of the petitioner for disability pension on the ground of limitation
alone in the light of the judgement referred to above. In Madhukar’s
case (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the pension to an
employee for the period from 21 Jun 1950 to 17 Jul 1960 in a petition
filed in the year 2011”.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in UOI Vs Tarsem Singh reported in

2009(1) AISLJ 371 held that “where service-related claim is based to a
continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in
seeking remedy”. Honourable Supreme Court and the High Court in the
various cases hold that regarding the claim of pension/disability
pension, bar of limitation would not apply and if there is a delay
in preferring the claim, relief can be molded by denying the pension
from the date it is due and payable and restrict the benefits for a period
of three years preceding the date when the applicant approaches the
Court. Hon’ble Supreme court in Shiv Dass vs Union of India and Ors
in C.A 274/2007while remitting matter back to Hon’ble High court and
held that “In the case of pension the cause of action actually continues
from month to. That, however, cannot be a ground to overlook delay in
filing the petition. It would depend upon the fact of each case. If
petition is filed beyond a reasonable period say three years normally the
 Court would reject the same or restrict the relief which could be granted
to a reasonable period of about three years”.

7. The applicant is being deprived of his lawful rights every month by not
getting correct pension for which he is authorized for as per the
provision in vogue, the delay in the matter is needs to be condoned for
the sake of justice.

8. Relief sought:

In view of the facts mentioned in above paras the applicants most

respectfully pray for the following relief: -
(a) The Application for Condonation of delay of………. days
needs to be kindly be allowed in the larger interest of justice being on a
Bonafide cause.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS YOUR APPLICANTS AS
IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

Place: New Delhi Applicant

Dated: / /2026
Through

Brajesh Kumar
Place: New Delhi Advocate for Applicant
Dated: .2026 H. No – RZF-100/9-10,
Gali no -41, Goyal Apartment
Sadh Nagar-II, Palam
New Delhi - 110045
Mob: 9546158675/8149730282
Email:
[Link]@[Link]
 VERIFICATION

I, Sgt Raman Sharma (Retd) (Ser NO. 909635-F), Aged about 42 years, S/o-
Prem Chand Sharma, R/o-House No. RZ-38, Street NO.-9 A, Raj Nagar Part
2, Palam, New Delhi -110077, do hereby verify that the contents of paras 1 to
4 of the above Misc Application are true to my personal knowledge and Para 5
to 8 are based on the legal advice received and believed to be true. Nothing
material has been concealed and there from.

Verified at New Delhi on this day _______2026

Place: New Delhi

Dated: / /2026 Applicant

Application through Counsel

Brajesh Kumar
Place: New Delhi Advocate for Applicant
Dated: .2026 H. No – RZF-100/9-10,
Gali no -41, Goyal Apartment
Sadh Nagar-II, Palam
New Delhi - 110045
Mob: 9546158675/8149730282
Email:
[Link]@[Link]
IN THE ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH
NEW DELHI

MA No. /2026
IN
OA No. /2026
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Sgt Raman Sharma (Retd) ... Applicant
(Ser NO. 909635-F)
Versus
Union of India & Ors. -- Respondents
AFFIDAVIT
I, Sgt Raman Sharma (Retd) (Ser NO. 909635-F), Aged about 42 years, S/o-
Prem Chand Sharma, R/o-House No. RZ-38, Street NO.-9 A, Raj Nagar Part
2, Palam, New Delhi -110077, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under: -
1. That I am applicant in the accompanying Misc. Application and I am
also acquainted with facts and circumstances of the case and competent to
swear this affidavit.
2. That the contents of accompanying application are believed to be true to
my own knowledge and belief. No parts of the application are false and no
material fact has been concealed therein.
3. That the statement made in the affidavit are true to my knowledge and
belief.
Date: / /2026
Place: New Delhi DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:
Verified at Delhi on this the ……. day of ………, 2026 by the above-named
deponent that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to my
knowledge and nothing material has been concealed there from.

Date: / /2026
Place: New Delhi DEPONENT