OROP Case : Doctrine Of Legitimate Expectation Can't Be Invoked Based On Minister's Statement & Parliamentary Committee Report - Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the Union Government's "One Rank One Pension" ("OROP") Scheme in Defence Forces. As per the said scheme, uniform pension is to be paid to armed services personnel retiring in the same rank with the same length of service, irrespective of the date of retirement and the rates of pension would be revised at periodic intervals. The petitioners sought 'annual revision of pension' under OROP. They had contended that the 2011 Report of the Rajya Sabha Committee on Pensions dated; subsequent speeches of Ministers and intra departmental communication indicated that as per the initial definition of OROP future enhancement in the rate of pension was to be "automatically passed on to the past pensioners". The final definition in the communication dated 07.11.2015, altered the definition to indicate that the revision would be at "periodic intervals", which is in the teeth of the prior assurances of the Union Government. The petitioners vehemently argued that revised definition would deprive the past pensioners of equal monetary benefits, which goes against the very principle of OROP. A Bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath were of the view that the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be invoked in the present case as the Union Government cannot be said to have taken a policy decision before the letter dated 07.11.2015. It stated that in the said communication it was made abundantly clear that the current pension rates would be revised at periodic intervals which was finally decided to be at an interval of 5 years.The Court held that the statements made by the then Union Finance Minister in 2014 in the Parliament or the Rajya Sabha Committee report cannot constitute legitimate expectation. Factual Background On 19.12.2011, the Rajya Sabha Committee on Pensions, the Koshyari Committee submitted its Report recommending the implementation of OROP. In the said report, the future enhancements in the rate of pension were to be passed on to the past pensioners automatically. On 17.02.2014, the Finance Minister in his Budget Speech stated that the Union Government in principle had accepted OROP. He also announced that it would be implemented prospectively from the financial year 2014-2015. In view of the same, he claimed Rs. 500 crores had been transferred to the Defence Pension Account. On 26.02.2014, the Defence Minister chaired a meeting to discuss the implementation of the OROP, wherein it was agreed upon that the enhanced interest rate would be automatically passed on to the past pensioners. On 26.02.2014, the Union Government asked the Controller General of Defence Accounts to work out the execution of OROP. On 10.07.2014 in his Budget Speech, the Finance Minister reaffirmed the commitment to implement OROP. Again, on 02.12.2014, in a written response to a Member of Parliament, the Minister for Defence announced that the enhanced pension rates would be automatically passed on to the past pensioners. In a letter dated 07.11.2015 sent to the Chiefs of the three defence forces, the Joint Secretary of the Union Government for the first time introduced that revision between the past and the current rate of pension would take place at periodic intervals. The Union Government adopted the said definition in its notification issued on 14.11.20215. A Committee headed by Justice L. Narasimha Reddy was constituted on measures to remove anomalies to arise at the implementation stage. On 25.01.2016, the first petitioner, wrote a letter to the Defence Minister objecting to the revised definition and requesting reversion to the original definition wherein the revised rates of interest was to be automatically passed on. The petitioner had also written to Justice L. Narasimha Rao and the Chiefs of the defence forces pointing out the anomaly. The Union Cabinet gave ex-post facto approval to the notification on 06.04.2016. The petitioners filed the present Writ Petition before the Supreme Court. Subsequently, it directed the Centre to look into the grievances raised. On 05.12.2019, the Centre filed an affidavit stating that after consultation with experts and ex-servicemen it had decided to revise pension under OROP at periodic intervals of five years. Contentions raised by the parties Senior Advocate, Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, inter alia, submitted that the definition of OROP was altered for the first time in the letter dated 07.11.2015 sent to the Chiefs of the defence forces by the Joint Secretary of the Union Government. The same was contrary to the initial definition agreed upon in the meeting dated 26.02.2014 and on several subsequent occasions. Additional Solicitor General, Mr. Venkataramanan argued that minutes, statements and inter-ministerial discussion within the Ministry cannot be enforced by the petitioner to assert their rights. It was also ...

OROP Case : Doctrine Of Legitimate Expectation Can't Be Invoked Based On Minister's Statement & Parliamentary Committee Report - Supreme Court

Sohini Chowdhury

Tags