CHENNAI: A long-standing dispute over pensionary benefits for Short Service Commissioned Officers (SSCOs) has reached the Supreme Court after the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) declined to take up the matter, holding that it fell within the domain of government policy.

The case arises from a petition filed by Maj (Dr) R Varadaraja Bharath (Retd), a former SSCO who completed over 10 years of commissioned service and served during the Kargil conflict (Operation Vijay). He sought pensionary relief by relying on an Army Instruction issued in 1964, which stated that pensionary terms for short-service officers were "under consideration". However, no final policy has been formulated, even decades after the short-service system was introduced.

The Short Service Commission was introduced in the mid-1960s to address officer shortages by inducting officers for limited tenures, unlike Permanent Commission officers who serve until retirement. Initially, SSCOs were commissioned for five years. Over time, the tenure was extended to 10 years, with a further four-year extension, allowing a maximum of 14 years of service.

While SSCOs perform duties identical to their permanent commission counterparts during service, they exit before completing the 20 years required under pension regulations.

In an order dated August 6, 2025, the AFT's Chennai Bench dismissed the Major's application. The Tribunal held that granting the relief sought would effectively require the government to frame pension rules for SSCOs, a step it said lay beyond its statutory powers.

An appeal against that order was later filed before the Tribunal. While condoning a short delay, the AFT declined leave in an order dated December 5, 2025, stating that the case did not involve an issue of public importance. With no further remedy available before the Tribunal, the petitioner has now approached the Supreme Court under Section 31 (1) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.