🧑‍✈️⚖️ Legal Validity of Training Period as Qualifying Service for Pay Calculation in Armed Forces

Why denial of Pay during Training Period lacks legal authority and demands Judicial Review

🔍 A Question That Refuses to Die

Is the Training Period of Armed Forces personnel a Qualifying Service for calculation of Pay, Increment, Promotion, and Pension?

This question has troubled Armed forces for decades. While the issue has been conclusively settled for Civil Central Government employees, it continues to remain administratively suppressed in the Armed Forces—despite stronger statutory backing.

👉 The time has come to examine this issue legally, constitutionally, and logically.

📜 Civil Services: The Debate Is Already Settled

For Central Government civilian employees, the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) issued a categorical order that Training Period shall be counted for grant of initial increment. This single decision has massive legal implications:

• Grant of increment = recognition of service
• Recognition of service = Qualifying Service
• Therefore, Training Period = Qualifying Service for Pay

📌 Once the Government certifies training for increment, it automatically qualifies for pay purposes.

🪖 Why Armed Forces Stand on a Much Stronger Legal Foundation

Unlike civilian employees, an Armed Forces recruit is governed by:

• Army Act, 1950
• Air Force Act, 1950
• Navy Act, 1957

👉 From the very first second of enrollment, the individual is under statutory military law.

⚠️ Key Legal Reality:

If a recruit commits an act of indiscipline on Day One of training, he is:

• Tried under Service Act
• Liable to statutory punishment

One such punishment is 👉 Pay Fine

💡 This creates an irrefutable legal logic:

🔥 If Pay can be fined on Day One, Pay must legally exist on Day One.

There is no concept of “non-existent pay” under any Service Act.

🧩 Three Statutory Stages That Confirm Armed Forces Service

As per military law and policy, service is confirmed through three stages:

1️⃣ Enrollment – The Legal Birth of Service

📌 Enrollment is a legal contract between:

• The Candidate, and
• The Government of India

🔹 Recruitment process may take months
🔹 But Enrollment Date is:

• The date on which the candidate signs the enrollment form, and
• The Recruiting Officer countersigns it

👉 From this date:

• The individual is governed by Service Act
• Military discipline applies fully

2️⃣ Mustering – Trade Allotment (Most Crucial for Pay)

🛠️ Mustering = Allotment of Trade

• Clerk
• Driver
• Technician
• Artificer, etc.

💰 Mustering decides:

• Pay Group (X / Y)
• Trade Pay
• Allowances eligibility

👉 Without mustering, pay classification itself is impossible.

3️⃣ Attestation – Declaration of “Fit for Duty”

🪖 Attestation is:

• Formal declaration of readiness for duty
• Second most effective date for Pay & Allowances

📘 What Old Regulations Said (Now Obsolete)

Under Pay & Allowances Regulations, 1979, a recruit was entitled to pay only:

• After completion of training, and
• After attestation

❗ But this clause lost its force after the 5th Central Pay Commission.

📆 5th CPC (w.e.f. 01 January 1996): The Turning Point

The Government, through 5th CPC, ordered:

✅ Pay shall be applicable from the date of Enrolment
🔁 Retrospectively, provided training is successfully completed

🔥 Legal Consequence:

• Condition of “completion of training” was superseded
• Attestation Date got retrospective effect
• Enrollment Date = Attestation Date for Pay Calculation

📌 In many cases, both dates are already identical.

🚨 The Real Anomaly: Where the System Failed

Despite:

• Clear Government orders
• Statutory discipline from Day One
• Retrospective applicability of pay

👉 Pay & Accounts Offices did NOT grant pay from Enrollment Date

❌ Resulting Loss:

• Lower Basic Pay
• Missing increments
• Reduced Pension
• Lifetime financial loss running into ₹5–10 lakhs per individual

⚖️ Why This Is a Fit Case for Judicial Review

The Military Info Foundation (MiF) has rightly demanded Judicial Review because:

🔹 Government orders were ignored
🔹 Statutory logic was violated
🔹 Pay was denied without authority of law
🔹 Policies were neither published nor transparently applied
🔹 Soldiers were exploited due to lack of awareness

📌 Such actions amount to:

• Insubordination to Government Rules
• Colourable exercise of power
• Violation of Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution

🔥 Core Legal Principle

Pay is not a bounty.
Pay flows from law.
Where law applies from Day One,
Pay must also apply from Day One.

🏁 Conclusion: The Issue Is No Longer Debatable

The training period of Armed Forces personnel:

• Is under statutory control
• Attracts statutory punishment
• Is retrospectively recognised for pay

👉 Therefore, denial of pay during training period has no legal basis.

The only remaining path is:
⚖️ Judicial Review
📜 Policy scrutiny
👤 Fixing responsibility
🧑‍✈️ Restoration of lawful pay & pension