The Supreme Court of India has held that personnel of the Defence Security Corps (DSC) are entitled to condonation of shortfall in qualifying service for the purpose of earning a second service pension.
The bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan has observed that condonation of shortfall in qualifying service up to one year is permissible under the Pension Regulations. This benefit applies equally to DSC personnel, as they are part of the Armed Forces unless explicitly excluded. Government circulars or executive instructions cannot override statutory pension regulations.
The core question before the Court was whether DSC personnel—who are already drawing pension from their initial Army service—can seek condonation of deficiency in their second spell of service to qualify for an additional pension.
The Union of India argued that DSC personnel must complete actual 15 years of service to qualify for a second pension. Condonation provisions are meant only to ensure at least one pension, not multiple pensions. A 2017 Ministry of Defence letter barred condonation for second pensions.
The respondents contended that Pension Regulations of 1961 and 2008 explicitly allow condonation of service deficiency. There is no legal bar on applying these provisions to DSC personnel. Courts and tribunals have consistently ruled in favour of granting such benefits.
The Court clarified that DSC is a recognized corps under the Army, and its personnel are governed by the same pension rules unless inconsistencies exist.
The Court found no conflict between provisions governing DSC pensions and those allowing condonation of service deficiency. Authorities must first calculate qualifying service by rounding off fractions (as per regulations and the 1987 government letter). Then apply condonation if the shortfall is within one year.
The Court strongly held that administrative instructions cannot amend or nullify statutory regulations.
The Court rejected the argument that granting a second pension amounts to a “double benefit,” noting that the second service is independent.
Case Details
Case Title: UOI Versus Balakrishnan Mullikote
Citation: JURISHOUR-496-SC-2026
Case No.: Diary No(s). 27246/2023
Date: 24/03/2026
