No Constitutional infirmity in 'One Rank One Pension' policy introduced by Central Govt: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the One Rank One Pension (OROP) scheme introduced by the Central government through its notification of November 7, 2015 [Indian Ex-Servicemen Movement (An All India Federation of Military Veterans Organization Represented v. Union of India Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare Ministry of Defense Secretary]..A three-judge Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath held that there is no legal mandate that everyone who held the same rank must have the same pensionThe OROP scheme was a policy decision taken by the Central government and the government was empowered to do so, it was held. "The Central government has taken a policy decision. Such a decision lies within the ambit of policy making powers of the government. We do not find any constitutional infirmity on the OROP principle and the notification dated November 7, 2015," the Court said.The OROP definition as argued by the petitioner is not found to be arbitrary by this Court, the Bench added.The Court, however, said that a refixation exercise must be conducted by the government for a period of 5 years with regard to pension payable to Army personnel as stated in the OROP policy in accordance with the November 7, 2015 notification. "Refixation exercise to be carried out from July 1, 2019. And arrears to be paid to Army personnel within 3 months," the Bench ordered..The top court was hearing a petition filed by Indian Ex-Servicemen Movement seeking implementation of the scheme in the Defense Forces as was envisaged in 2014 by the then Finance Minister, P Chidambaram.The plea has claimed that despite the assurance on the floor of the parliament in 2014 by the Finance Minister, what was being implemented was "different amount of pension for personnel on same rank depending on when the person has retired".Notably, in his budgetary speech, the Finance Minister had endorsed the recommendation of the Koshiyari Committee of 2011 that had recommended for grant of One Rank One Pension i.e. uniform pension is to be paid to the Personnel of Armed Forces who retire on the same rank with the same length of service, irrespective of their date of retirement and any future enhancement in the rates of pension will be automatically passed on to the past pensioners..Filed through Advocate-on-Record Balaji Srinivasan, the plea questioned the Central government's notification dated November 7, 2015. The plea stated that the Central government under the guise of implementing OROP, twisted or modified or altered the definition of OROP as being uniform payment of pension to retired servicemen retiring in the same rank with the same length of service, regardless of their date of retirement, meaning thereby that the gap between the rates of pension of current and past pensioners were to be bridged at "periodic intervals"."Government Notification of November 7, 2015 goes to the very heart and soul of the OROP and alters it, as the OROP involves enhancement in the rates of pension being passed on to passed pensioners and OROP is not merely about pension but about 'justice, equity, izzat and status'," the plea stated.The plea sought annual revision of pension under OROP and for calculating pension based on 2014 salary of ex-servicemen which with regard to the 2015 notification was being fixed on the basis of 2013 and the periodic review was fixed at 5 years.Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi appearing for the petitioners had argued that the 2015 notification is arbitrary on the face of it since it introduces certain elements of inequality in terms of grant of pension and is in direct contradiction to the assurance given in the Finance Minister's Budgetary speech of 2014 and to the recommendations of Koshiyari Committee."You cannot introduce the devil in details. Now you are putting riders," Senior Advocate Ahmadi had stated regarding the 2015 notification drawing a new definition of the OROP Scheme.In response to the same, the Central government had argued that the speech by the Finance Minister wherein the Koshiyari Committee's recommendations of 2011 for OROP was endorsed was not based on any decision reached by the Union Cabinet..In its affidavit before the Supreme Court, the Central government had in certain terms stated that both 'same rank' and 'same length of service' in defense services are necessary conditions for claiming One Rank One Pension benefits.Moreover, the Central government while objecting to the stand of the petitioners that while grant of pensionary benefit under OROP, emphasis should be laid on the rank of the personnel and not on the length of the service, states that the same is impermissible and unsustainable in law."The contention of the Petitioners defeats one of the core values of the OROP, which is not only same rank but with the same length of service. This pair cannot be impaired. One cannot take only the same rank and ignore the length of service and similarly one cannot merely take the length of service and ignore the rank. The core parameter is same rank and same length of service. It is important to highlight that the expression "same" appears twice as "same rank" and "same length of service". By any stretch of imagination, it cannot be read as same rank different length of service or same length of service different ranks. It precisely meets with the Constitutional test under Article 14 which is 'unequal should not be treated equally' and 'equals should not be treated to be unequally'," the Centre had submitted.The Central government had also made it clear before the Court that for the purpose of computation of OROP benefits, it 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.Additional Solicitor General (ASG) N Venkataraman appearing for the Centre had stated that there has been no discrimination of any of the retirees in any form whatsoever."Heart of the policy maker is as wide as citizen but when we work on the table and ultimately arrive at the policy, concerns are always baring," the ASG had argued..With regard to the argument of the petitioners questioning the November 7, 2015 notification that the same has modified or altered the definition of OROP, the Central government had submitted that the official documents with regard to OROP do not support such a construction.Additionally, with regard to petitioners emphasizing on the expression, 'automatic' for revising OROP automatically rather than once in 5 years, the Centre had submitted that:"It is surprising the expression "automatically" is perceived and contended as something which is with reference to time or period. The expression "automatically" follows the expression "in the rates of pension to be automatically passed on to the past pensioners" The expression "automatically" should be read contextually meaning the rates of pension will be passed on to the past pensioners without any difficulties or impediments in terms of sanctions and other procedural interventions. It is surprising that the Petitioners read it as period and time. The above statement does not convey even remotely any committed manner of computation including periods and time. Therefore, this out of context reference needs to be rejected. More importantly, the policy document states that OROP is to bridge the gap between the rates of pension of current and past pensioners, which objective has been duly complied with."The top court had reserved its judgment in the matter on February 23..[Read Judgment]