OROP : Supreme Court Seeks Clarifications From Centre On Impact Of MACP Benefits On "One Rank One Pension" Scheme

In the plea filed by Ex- Serviceman Movement seeking implementation of the "One Rank One Pension"/ ("OROP") in the Defense Forces, the Supreme Court today sought Union's response on certain specific issues.The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath orally asked Union to make a disclosure by way of an affidavit on the following aspects: Number of Personnels who have been granted Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) as total proportion of various ranks.Number of personnels who have been granted 1st, 2nd ACP.Pursuant to the Finance Minister making a statement, was there any policy finalized that was the basis for the Statement.Financial outlay of the government, if directions are issued for factoring MACP for OROP. Is there any specific exclusion in the policy for MACP benefits?From Koshiyari Committee's recommendation, speech by Finance Minister dated February 17, 2014, minutes of the meeting chaired by Defense Minister dated February 26, 2014, letter dated February 26, 2014 to the Controller General of Defense Accounts, budget speech by Finance Minister dated July 10, 2014, which was Policy Statements and which were within the realm of discussion.Practical cases showing implementation of OROP and how many people have been benefited(Note : These are oral queries made by the bench and do not figure in the written order passed by it after the hearings)While the bench asked ASG to file an affidavit in this regard, Justice DY Chandrachud remarked, "Let the government also re appreciate its decision. Because you have made a commitment."Comparison Which Was Made In Table Was Comparison Between Non Comparables: ASG N VenkataramanWhen the matter was called for hearing, Additional Solicitor General N Venkataraman appearing for the Union drew court's attention to the Tabular Chart I presented by Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi wherein emphasis was laid on Veterans who retired in 2014 drawing more pension than the veterans who retired between 1965 and 2013.In this regard, the ASG contended that the pension payable to a Sepoy within 15 years of qualifying service under OROP and the actual pension of the Sepoy who retired in 2014 (before application of OROP) after 15 years of qualifying service was drawing pension in the rank of "Naik" due to the operation of MACP.To further substantiate his contention, he said that the pay of different sepoys varied depending on whether the benefit of MACP Scheme had been granted to such Sepoy or not."You can't compare oranges and apples and make distinctions. They want MACP to be badged with non MACP & get the same scale. Within the same rank the pay scale because of MACP may vary but he retains the same designation. Our court has said that people may draw different salaries but having the same rank because of MACP. Now my friend says match me with Naik for OROP. Non MACP Sepoy and MACP Sepoy and asking them to match with MACP is claiming to get higher," ASG added.What It Appears Is That MACP Has Become A Barrier For Grant Of OROP; Your Hyperbole On The Policy Presented A Much Rosier Picture Than What Is Actually Given: SCAt this juncture, Justice Surya Kant asked, "OROP is a benefit that comes after service period and MACP comes during service. Under MACP what is the approximate percentage who have been granted the benefit? MACP is based on length of service. If you have a factor of 8 years, 16 years and 24 years- there will be hardly any person who will serve for 24 years."While ASG submitted that someone qualifying for MACP & not for MACP was not the subject matter of this writ, Justice Surya Kant said, "It's not within the subject matter but it's important for OROP. If in the cadre of Sepoy, 80% of them will get MACP then they will get the same OROP. What it appears is that MACP has become a barrier for grant of OROP.""There are also a larger number of people who will get the same MACP because of 8 years," Justice DY Chandrachud the presiding judge of the bench added.Responding to the remarks posed by the bench, ASG submitted that the comparison which was made in the Table was a comparison between non-comparables.To further highlight the issue, the ASG argued that the weighted average pension could never be compared with the actual amount being received by a defense personnel as pension fixed under the rules applicable for retiring the pension in the normal course."There's no statutory definition of OROP. It's a matter of art. The fact of the matter is "there is no statutory definition of OROP". When you've framed policy, you've given a particular definition. The fact that you have not gone further, is it violative of Article 14? Your hyperbole on the policy presented a much rosier picture than what is actually given," remarked Justice DY Chandrachud.ASG at this juncture said, "It's a policy decision & it's neither a legislation or a delegated legislation. Minutes, statements & inter ministerial discussions do not become the force of law. Scope of...

OROP : Supreme Court Seeks Clarifications From Centre On Impact Of MACP Benefits On "One Rank One Pension" Scheme

Shruti Kakkar

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Shruti Kakkar

OROP : Supreme Court Seeks Clarifications From Centre On Impact Of MACP Benefits On "One Rank One Pension" Scheme

Shruti Kakkar

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Shruti Kakkar

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers