Rajasthan HC reads ‘and’ in AFI 48/75 to grant Air Force veteran Flying Officer pay plus two grade increments

Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has held that the word “and” in Air Force Instruction 48/75 grants two separate benefits, not a single bundled one. A Branch Commissioned officer with eight years of prior service as an Airman is entitled both to the rank of Flying Officer and to two ante-date grade increments for pay. A division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Sunil Beniwal allowed the petition on 12 May 2026.

The court set aside two earlier orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Jaipur. It directed that the retired squadron leader’s pay be re-fixed at Rs 2,700 a month — the basic pay of Rs 2,500 plus two increments of Rs 100 each.

The petitioner, Squadron Leader C. Singh (Retd.), now 75, joined the Indian Air Force on 21 January 1966. He served in the ranks up to Junior Warrant Officer for 22 years and 331 days. On 17 December 1988, he was commissioned as a Branch Commissioned officer in the Accounts Branch in the rank of Flying Officer. He superannuated on 31 August 2004 after 39 years of service.

Air Force Instruction 48/75, as amended by Corrigendum Nos. 3 and 4 of 1 July 1981, governs branch commissioning of Airmen. Under that instruction, Airmen with eight years of combined service in the ranks who clear training are commissioned in the rank of Flying Officer. They are also granted two years of ante-date seniority for the purpose of pay only.

On commission, the petitioner’s pay was fixed at Rs 2,500 instead of Rs 2,700 — the Rs 200 representing the two ante-date increments he claimed were due. He raised the issue repeatedly with the Air Officer Commanding and the AF CAO in New Delhi, both before and after the 5th Central Pay Commission.

The Government of India also issued a stepping-up letter dated 16 December 2004 for officers commissioned before 1 January 1996. His request for re-fixation was, however, rejected on 1 September 2005. The respondents took the view that the stepping-up provision applied only to officers commissioned between 1992 and 1995, and the petitioner — commissioned in 1988 — fell outside its scope.

He then approached the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Jaipur. The Tribunal rejected his original application on 22 March 2022 and his review petition on 31 May 2022. He moved the High Court at Jodhpur.

The petitioner, who appeared in person before the High Court, submitted that AFI 48/75 was clear on its face. It required him to be commissioned in the rank of Flying Officer with two grade increments on top. His pay should have been fixed at Rs 2,500 plus two increments of Rs 100 — a total of Rs 2,700. He contended that the Tribunal had misinterpreted the instruction.

Counsel Vivek Shrimali, appearing for the Union of India, urged the court to read the instruction harmoniously. He told the bench that Airmen, in the ordinary course, are commissioned as Pilot Officers. Those with eight or more years of service in the ranks are commissioned at the higher rank of Flying Officer. That higher rank, he said, is itself inclusive of the two grade increments.

If two increments were added on top of Flying Officer pay, he submitted, it would effectively give a Pilot Officer four increments in total. That, he said, could not have been the intent of the policy. The Tribunal, he argued, had read the instruction correctly.

The bench framed its analysis around a single grammatical question. What does the word “and” mean in the phrase “will be commissioned in the rank of Flying Officer and granted 2 years ante-date for the purpose of pay only”?

The court turned to the Oxford Learner’s Dictionary. It noted that “and” is a conjunction used to connect words, phrases or clauses, signifying “also,” “in addition to,” or “plus.” Applying that ordinary meaning, the bench held that the Legislature had clearly intended two additional grade increments for a person appointed to the post of Flying Officer.

In simple terms, the rank and the two increments are two separate benefits joined by “and” — not one bundled benefit. The Flying Officer rank does not absorb or subsume the ante-date increments.

The bench then invoked the basic canon of statutory interpretation. Where the words of a statute are clear and unambiguous, they must be given their literal meaning. Only where the language is ambiguous should the court look to legislative intent. The phrase here, the court said, was not ambiguous. It observed: “the word ‘and’ unequivocally denotes the grant of two additional increments, over and above the appointment made to the post of Flying Officer.”

That reasoning cut directly against the government’s submission. The respondents’ reading would have required the court to treat “and” as if it meant “which includes.” That meaning, the bench held, was not supported by the dictionary or required by the text.

The Division Bench allowed the writ petition. It quashed and set aside the Armed Forces Tribunal’s orders dated 22 March 2022 and 31 May 2022. The petitioner’s original application before the Tribunal was allowed. The respondents were directed to place the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs 2,500 + 100 + 100 = Rs 2,700 in the rank of Flying Officer. He was also held entitled to all consequential benefits, including arrears, after recalculation of his salary. The entire benefit, including arrears, is to be paid within six months of receipt of a certified copy of the order. Any pending stay application or other applications also stand disposed of.

Case details