AFT Grants Pension to Former IAF Short Service Commission Officer After 15 Years

AFT grants pension to a former Indian Air Force (IAF) short service commission officer, 15 years after she retired. The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) order, reported by SSBCrack on 11 November 2026, comes from its Chandigarh Bench. It deems the officer to have completed 20 years of pensionable service.

In short, a woman officer who was denied permanent commission and left the service in 2011 has now been given pension and other retirement benefits.

AFT Grants Pension: What the Tribunal Decided

• Officer: Wing Commander Namrita Chandi (retd), who was an IAF short service commission officer.
• Bench: Chandigarh Bench (Chandimandir) of the Armed Forces Tribunal, made up of Justice Sudhir Mittal and Lieutenant General (Dr) Ranbir Singh (retd).
• Order: The tribunal modified its own 2015 judgment in her case.
• Pension: She is deemed to have completed 20 years of pensionable service. Her pension is payable from the day after the date she completed 20 years of service.
• Other benefits: She is also entitled to the other retirement benefits that an officer with the required pensionable service receives.

The Officer's Service and Her Case

According to the report, the officer was commissioned in the IAF under the short service commission in 1996 for an initial 10 years. She asked for permanent commission, and that request was rejected. She was given a five-year extension and retired in 2011.

The report says the IAF had earlier rejected her request because no provision then allowed permanent commission for short service commission officers in the flying branch.

Here is how the case moved, as the report describes it:

• Delhi High Court: She challenged the denial of permanent commission through a writ petition.
• 2014: The matter was transferred to the Principal Bench of the AFT.
• 2015: The AFT allowed her petition, along with a batch of similar cases. It relied on the Delhi High Court judgment in Babita Puniya and Others v. Secretary and Another.
• 2019: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the defence authorities.
• After the appeal: She sent a legal notice asking for the order to be put into effect. The IAF replied that the competent authority would consider her suitability for permanent commission, and an independent board was set up. She was asked to report for a medical examination on 22 July 2020.
• Her objection: She objected to being assessed under the 2004 and 2010 policies, especially after nine years out of service.

Why the Tribunal Ruled This Way

Her counsel, Sandeep Bansal, argued that she was entitled to pension on the basis of 20 years of service, along with retirement benefits. She asked the tribunal to modify the 2015 judgment, citing Supreme Court rulings on women officers in the Army and Navy, including Babita Puniya and Lt Cdr Annie Nagaraja.

The tribunal relied on those Supreme Court decisions. As the report puts it, the Supreme Court held that short service commission women officers who opted for permanent commission but were given extensions must be treated on par with male short service commission officers. The benefit also covers women who approached the Supreme Court and retired in the meantime. Women who were denied consideration for permanent commission and are no longer in service are deemed to have completed the required substantive pensionable service.

The report adds that the Union asked for an adjournment because the paper book was not available. The tribunal refused, saying the Supreme Court's orders were well known and left no ambiguity.

Key Terms Explained

• Short service commission (SSC): a way of joining the armed forces as an officer for a limited number of years, instead of a full career.
• Permanent commission (PC): a commission that lets an officer serve until retirement age.
• Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT): a tribunal that hears service matters of armed forces personnel, such as pension, promotion and commission.
• Pensionable service: the period of service that counts when pension is worked out.
• Writ petition: a request to a High Court to order the government to act or to correct a decision.

What the Report Does Not Say

The SSBCrack article is a news report, not the tribunal's order. It does not give the case number, the date of the order, the amount of pension, any arrears or interest, a payment deadline, or the exact date from which the 20 years are counted. It also does not give the Union's detailed arguments against the pension claim. Read the order itself for these details.

Why This Matters for Defence Aspirants

Short service commission is one of the ways candidates join the IAF as officers, for example through the AFCAT exam. This order shows how service terms such as permanent commission and pensionable service can matter many years after an officer leaves. It is a court order about one officer's case, so it is not a general rule for every officer. If you are preparing for officer entries, see our AFCAT previous year papers guide and CDS previous year papers guide.

For more defence news and updates on your phone, join the Defence Study community: Join the Community

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the AFT decide in this case?

The Chandigarh Bench of the AFT modified its 2015 judgment and held that the former IAF officer is deemed to have completed 20 years of pensionable service. Her pension is payable from the day after she completed 20 years, along with other retirement benefits.

Who is the officer in this case?

She is Wing Commander Namrita Chandi (retd), an IAF short service commission officer who was commissioned in 1996 and retired in 2011, according to the SSBCrack report.

Which bench passed the order?

The Chandigarh Bench (Chandimandir) of the Armed Forces Tribunal, made up of Justice Sudhir Mittal and Lieutenant General (Dr) Ranbir Singh (retd).

Does the order apply to all short service commission officers?

The report describes an order in one officer's case, based on Supreme Court rulings for women short service commission officers who were denied permanent commission. Whether it applies to anyone else depends on their own facts and the order itself.