E-Paper
Show us how people have benefitted from OROP, SC asks Centre
The association of ex-servicemen was represented by senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi and advocate Balaji Srinivasan.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Centre to show, with examples how the one rank one pension (OROP) policy has benefitted ex-servicemen, observing that what was promised by the government was “rosier” than what was given.
Dealing with a petition filed by an association of Indian ex-servicemen challenging the grant of OROP provided under a government policy of November 7, 2015, the top court wished to know how OROP has been implemented and sought documents that went into the making of this decision to be produced before it by Monday.
By the November 2015 notification, the government made the OROP scheme applicable to those who retired from the armed forces before July 1, 2014. While doing so, the Centre arrived at a mean pension to bridge the gap between the present and past pensioners to be periodically reviewed in five years.
“Show us practically how people have benefitted from OROP,” said a three-judge bench headed by justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud referring to the arguments made by the petitioner organisation claiming that the policy created a situation of one rank, many pensions.
The association of ex-servicemen was represented by senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi and advocate Balaji Srinivasan. Ahmadi said that the Centre had unnecessarily linked modified assured career progression (MACP) to OROP, thus denying the benefit of common pension to all ex-servicemen.
The bench, also comprising justices Surya Kant and Vikram Nath said, “The petitioners seem to suggest discrepancy between the parliamentary discussion and the actual policy which ultimately came out (in November 2015). Your hyperbole on the policy presented a much rosier picture .”
Additional solicitor general (ASG) N Venkatraman informed the court that it was wrong to say that OROP has not been implemented and said that the MACP, provided during service is provided within a rank to those who stagnate and do not get promoted. MACP was provided based on the recommendations of the Sixth pay commission. Venkatraman further stated that the grant of MACP and who would qualify under it in not an issue in the present petition.
The bench differed, saying, “It is important for considering OROP. It seems MACP is a barrier for OROP.” The court asked the ASG to produce data on how many persons benefitted from MACP, since its introduction in 2006 and further, how many among them got the benefit of OROP in 2015.
The ASG said that the policy was approved by the Cabinet and this being a policy decision taking into consideration the financial implications, there was limited room for judicial review. He sought reliance on certain documents claiming them to be confidential.
The court asked the Centre to also indicate by Monday, the financial implication in the grant of OROP.
Posting the matter for hearing on Wednesday, the bench said, asked the government to rethink the policy. “Let the government re-appreciate its decision since you have made a commitment on the floor of the House,” the bench said.
The petition has been pending in the top court since 2016. The last affidavit filed in this matter by the ministry of defence back in November 2020 said that every year due to OROP, there is an annual recurring expenditure of ₹7,123.38 crore. Since the scheme was made applicable since July 1, 2014, the government had spent over ₹42,740.28 crore (as on November 2020), the affidavit said.
As per the present scheme, the periodic review of pension was fixed at five years and the pension fixed was based on 2013 salaries.
The military veterans in their petition have demanded 2014 salary to be taken as the base salary. The petitioner also relied on a 2011 report presented by the Committee of Pensions, Rajya Sabha headed by veteran BJP leader Bhagat Singh Koshiyari (known as Koshiyari Committee) which defined OROP as uniform pension for all armed forces personnel retiring in the same rank and with same years of service irrespective of their date of retirement. The committee recommended annual revision under OROP.
