In a curative petition filed before the apex court in May, Major R Varadaraja Bharath had sought a review of the Supreme Court’s order of April 2026, dismissing a review petition filed against a judgement of the Armed Forces Tribunal

The Supreme Court has dismissed a plea by former Short Service Commission Officers (SSCOs) who had knocked on the doors of the top court seeking reconsideration of earlier judicial pronouncements that had rejected their demand for pro-rata pension.

In a curative petition filed before the apex court in May, Major R Varadaraja Bharath had sought a review of the Supreme Court’s order of April 2026, dismissing a review petition filed against a judgement of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT).

In August 2025, the AFT had rejected the original application seeking pension for SSCOs on the grounds that it is not invested with jurisdiction to adjudicate the issues involved, observing that a Tribunal subject to the High Courts’ jurisdiction under Article 226, cannot be permitted by law, to direct the framing of policy by the government.

A curative petition is the final legal recourse in the Supreme Court, filed after a review petition against earlier orders is dismissed. It is a rarely used provision and requires a senior advocate’s certification and the petition is heard in the chambers.

“In our opinion, no case to entertain this Curative Petition is made out within the parameters indicated by this Court in the case of Rupa Ashok Hurra vs. Ashok Hurra and Another. Hence, the Curative Petition is dismissed,” a five-member Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant ruled in their order of October 28.

According to legal experts, the Hurra case, a matrimonial dispute decided by the Supreme Court in April 2002, officially introduced the curative petition into the Indian legal system. The legal issues raised in the matter were whether an aggrieved person is entitled to any relief against a final judgment or order of the Supreme Court after the dismissal of a review petition, and whether the top court can use its inherent powers to reconsider or correct its own order after a review petition is dismissed, to prevent an abuse of process or a gross miscarriage of justice.

SSCOs in the Armed Forces serve for a fixed term of 10 years, extendable to 14 years, and those not selected for a permanent commission are released without grant of pension. The petitioner in this case, an officer from the Army Dental Corps, had served for 10 years and one month.

“Our contentions concerning the case were that Para 17 of Army Instruction 11/S of 1964 applicable to SSCOs of combat and support arms, under the heading ‘Pensionary Terms’, it is stated that ‘These are under consideration and orders will be issued separately’,” Lt Col GPS Virk (retd), a Chandigarh-based lawyer who had pleaded the case before the Tribunal, said.

“This is ultra vires when Rule 30 of the Pension Regulations of 1961 existed to compute pension for officers who served less than the standard years of service and 11/S cannot override the statutory Pension Regulations,” he averred.

The curative petition averred that 11/S cannot override the statutory Pension Regulations, and pointed out that Rule 30 of the Pension Regulations 1961 covers special pension and gratuity applicable for specific conditions such as premature retirement, reduction in establishment or other circumstances, and any administrative instructions cannot curtail or defer rights flowing from statutory regulations.

Further, until Para 17 is judicially tested and set aside, the AFT cannot lawfully base its opinion on it nor convert a statutory pension claim into a policy matter, the petition added.