Summary
The Supreme Court held that submarine pay formed part of reckonable pay for the service pensions of three naval sailors who retired in 1983. The governing 1967 letter treated it as pay for all purposes, and the 1974 Navy Instruction distinguished submarine pay from submarine allowance without excluding it from pension. Later instructions could not govern these retirees.
Issues
- Whether submarine pay was includible in the service-pension calculation for the appellants under the instructions applicable at their retirement.
Provisions considered
- Regulations 84 and 86, Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964The pension framework assesses service pension by rank and group; the Court considered the applicable rates in deciding reckonable pay. (¶¶ 5, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3)
- Clause 4(a), Appendix B entries 14 and 15 and note(ii), Navy Instruction No.2/S/74 dated 17 August 1974Actually drawn basic pay, separate submarine-pay and allowance entries, and the contrast with expressly excluded flying pay supported inclusion. (¶¶ 5.6, 5.9, 5.10, 5.11)
Held
- The 1967 Ministry of Defence letter treated submarine pay as pay for all purposes, including pension. The appellants’ last-pay certificates showed it as a separate head of pay. (¶¶ 5.4, 5.8, 5.9)
- Under the governing 1974 instruction, submarine pay and submarine allowance were distinct. Submarine pay was not excluded from pension computation, unlike the express exclusion of flying pay. (¶¶ 5.6, 5.9, 5.10, 5.11)
- Later instructions revising basic pay and redesignating special pays could not determine pensions for these appellants who had retired before those instruments took effect. (¶¶ 5.7, 5.12)
- Submarine pay was therefore includible in pay for computing the appellants’ service pensions. (¶ 6)
Result
Appeal allowed; Armed Forces Tribunal order set aside. Submarine pay held includible in the appellants’ pensionable pay under the governing historical instructions. No costs.