OROP : Supreme Court Starts Hearing Ex-Servicemen's Plea For 'One Rank One Pension'

The Supreme Court on Tuesday commenced hearing the plea seeking implementation of the "One Rank One Pension"/ ("OROP") in the Defense Forces.The plea filed by Indian Ex Servicemen Movement averring that despite the assurance on floor of Parliament, what is being implemented is "different pensions for same rank depending on when the person retired", was listed before the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath.The petitioners had questioned the notification dated November 7, 2015, issued by the Union Government wherein while implementing OROP, it had adopted a modified definition of the expression under which the gap between the rates of pension of current and past pensioners were to be bridged at "periodic intervals".The petitioners seek annual revision of pension under OROP and for calculating the pension based on 2014 salary of ex-servicemen. As per 2015 notification, the periodic review of pension was fixed at five years and the pension was fixed based on 2013 salariesSubmission Of CounselsNotification Regarding Implementation Of OROP Is Arbitrary & Contrary To Executive Decision; You Can't Introduce The Devil In Details:Senior Counsel Huzefa AhmadiAppearing for the Indian Ex Servicemen Movement, Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi submitted that the notification dated November 7, 2015 regarding implementation of OROP was arbitrary and contrary to the Executive Decision itself."Notification uses "periodic" & further elements of inequality. That renders it arbitrary on the face of it," Senior Counsel added.To substantiate his contention in this regard, the Senior Counsel relied on the Budgetary Speech of the Finance Minister of 2014 wherein the Koshiyari Committee's recommendation was endorsed. Koshiyari Committee had recommended for grant of OROP which implied payment of uniform pension to Armed Forces Personnel who retire on the same rank with the same length of service, irrespective of their date of retirementSenior Counsel also referred to the speech of the Minister of Defense on February 26, 2014 following which the Controller General of Defense Accounts was directed to work out modalities which was further reaffirmed on 10 July 2014 by the Finance Minister and on 2 December 2014 by the Minister of State for Defense."You can't introduce the devil in the details. Now you're putting riders," submitted Senior Counsel.Implementation Of This New Definition Of OROP Defeats The Very Principle Of OROP By Creating A Class Within A Class Of The Same Officers, Which In Practice Tantamounts To One Rank Different Pensions: Senior Advocate Huzefa AhmadiIt was also Senior Counsel's contention that Pension equalization every five years would result in the grave disadvantage to the past retirees. To further elaborate on this contention, counsel argued that it was necessary for revising pension benefits automatically instead of periodic revision of 5 years as when the next pay commission recommendations will be applied, past pensioners will still be kept 1.5 years behind because of this periodic revision. "Whatever reasonable period your lordship feels may fix that. There is a huge hiatus of 5 years & then of 1.5 years. Practically though effectively there is almost a hiatus of 1.5 years," Senior Counsel added.On Senior Counsel's submission, Justice DY Chandrachud the presiding judge of the bench said, "There are 3 concepts: Those retiring from the same rank from same service get same pension irrespective of age of retirement Revision has to be automatically passed on. Bridging the gap between the rate of pension of present and past pensioners.""Unless you weave all 3 into 1. Take away any one of these, the practical effect would be that you will have one rank differently," submitted Ahmadi in response."Once you have occupied 1 rank in the same length of service, you should get the same pension irrespective of when they retire. Revision has to be automatically passed on. Automatically passed on is an ideal concept. Koshiyari makes a distinction between Armed Forces and Central Government Employees. Revision is always periodic. That's the contention," remarked Justice Chandrachud further.It was also Senior Counsel's contention that fixation of pension as per calendar year 2013 would result in past retirees (pre 2014) getting less pension of one increment than the soldier retiring after 2014.On the aspect of fixation of pension as mean of Minimum and Maximum pension, Senior Advocate contended that fixing pension as mean of Min and Max pension of 2013 would result in different pensions for the same ranks and same length of service and the past retiree would get 1.5 increment lesser on account of such fixation."Government is a good businessman," remarked Justice Nath."Ultimately it's a question of money. When they fix up pension after 5 years, do they give arrears of the past?," asked Justice DY Chandrchud.Answering in negative, Senior Counsel to answer the question posed by the bench said, "That is...

OROP : Supreme Court Starts Hearing Ex-Servicemen's Plea For 'One Rank One Pension'

Shruti Kakkar

During the hearing, the Court asked the Centre why the revision was fixed at 5 years and why can't it be done annually.

Tags