OROP : Supreme Court Reserves Judgement In Ex-Servicemen's Plea For 'One Rank One Pension'; Economic Policy Be Considered With 'Caution', Says Centre

The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved judgment by plea filed by the Ex- Serviceman Movement seeking implementation of the "One Rank One Pension"/ ("OROP") in the Defense Forces.The plea filed through Advocate on Record Balaji Srinivasan wherein it was averred that despite the assurance on floor of Parliament, what was being implemented is "different pensions for same rank depending on when the person retired", was heard by 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 salaries.Submission Of CounselsWe Have Not Discriminated Any Of The Retirees In Any Form; Heart Of Policy Maker Is As Wide As Citizen But When We Work At The Table & Ultimately Arrive At Policy, Concerns Are Always Baring: ASG VenkataramanAdditional Solicitor General Venkataraman commenced his submissions by drawing the court's attention to the affidavit filed by the Union in response to the questions posed by the bench on the last date of hearing.With regards to the then Finance Minister's (P Chidambaram) speech which was made on February 17, 2014, ASG submitted that the Finance Minister's speech wherein the Koshiyari Committee's recommendation was endorsed was not based on any decision or recommendation by the then Union Cabinet.On the aspect of petitioner's contention that one should go only by the same rank and not the same length of service and still grant or extend OROP benefits, ASG while referring to the affidavit submitted that the threshold condition to qualify for MACP is completion of the required length of service.Further, ASG said that for the purpose of computation of OROP, the Union has taken Modified Assured Career Progression(MACP) as the base and has applied it across the board for all the retirees having the same length of service. "When we took it as 2013, we have benchmarked. Everything has been formulated. Any assumption of disparity betweenw ACP & MACP era, non ACP & MACP era, doesn't exist for OROP," ASG added.He also submitted that matching Non MACP with MACP would result in financial implication of INR 42,776.38 crores.At this juncture, Justice Surya Kant said, "On the civilian side when we talk of after 10 years revision, pay structure also changes. The basic pay also changes. In case of annual revision of OROP, there is no change of annual basic structure. Only DR components, that'll probably merge into it. Automatically or probably as we could understand. Will it cause any financial implications?"Responding to the question posed by the bench, ASG said, "When we take after 5 years, we take the last drawn pay which will have all the factors. It's not only arithmetical calculation of DR. But we also consider all the cumulative factors. It's not merely an aggregation of 5 years of DR. We also have to see 5 years from now. It's a commitment.""After 5 years, there is financial impact. What is the difference between if you revise yearly & after 5 years. What will be the effect? In the case of a retiree while in service there are so many allowances attached to the post you occupy. After retirement there are certain allowances which disappear but DR or DA, that continues. Applying this principle & considering the fact that what we are talking of retirees annually whose other allowance are hardly visible, maybe that impact is hardly visible," remarked Justice Kant."If we do something, that'll be walking an extra mile. Anything you create that is a fundamental aspect. Heart of a policy maker is as wide as a citizen but when we work at the table & ultimately arrive at a policy, concerns are always baring. This concern you do it for 1 year today, make it for this case but what would be its repercussions in other areas," submitted ASG in response. By Introducing Concept Of Periodic Intervals, Period Cannot Be So Large So As To Make Concept Of OROP Illusory & In Effect Decree One Rank Different Pension; It Would Be Purile To Contend That Minutes Of Meeting Chaired By Raksha Mantri Did Not Constitute An Executive Decision Taken By The Union: Senior Counsel Huzefa AhmadiAppearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi in his rejoinder submissions contended that application of OROP by the Center has resulted in 1 rank different pension."It has never been my contention that any personnel who has not been under the different length of service should get the same OROP. To suggest that this would be a financial burden if my contention is accepted- ...

OROP : Supreme Court Reserves Judgement In Ex-Servicemen's Plea For 'One Rank One Pension'; Economic Policy Be Considered With 'Caution', Says Centre

Shruti Kakkar

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Shruti Kakkar

OROP : Supreme Court Reserves Judgement In Ex-Servicemen's Plea For 'One Rank One Pension'; Economic Policy Be Considered With 'Caution', Says Centre

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