On Wednesday, the Supreme Court said the Centre’s exaggeration of the One Rank One Pension (OROP) policy offered a “rosier view” than the reality provided to pensioners in those in the Armed forces.
The court requested the Centre to make clear the numbers of persons who are part of the Armed forces have been granted Modified assured Career Progression (MACP), what percentage are in the Assured Career Progression (ACP), and what will be the financial cost if the court orders MACP to be included into OROP.
A panel composed of Justices DY Chandrachud Surya Kant and Vikram Nath asked some nagging questions to the Additional Solicitor-General N Venkatraman, appearing for Centre and asked if there was any previous policy before the promises made on the floor of the house on the 17th of February 2014, which the government has ratified in principle to allow OROP.
“We must deal with the fact that there’s no legal description of OROP. It’s a term in Art and a decision of a policy. The(petitioners) claim is that there’s a difference between the words spoken in the House of Representatives and the policy that was ultimately adopted. The issue is whether that is a violation of the provisions of Article 14. Your (Centre) overblown adulation of the OROP policy gave a more rosy picture than what’s offered to retired,” The bench stated.
Justice Surya Kant told Venkatraman that OROP benefits accrue after service, whereas MACP is available after the service period.
“We are interested in knowing how many people have the MACP. It is said that those who have MACP are in a different category. If 80 percent of people with sepoys have MACP, do they qualify for OROP? It is believed that MACP can be a hindrance for OROP,” Justice Kant stated.
The ASG claimed that petitioners are trying to draw comparisons between two different Sepoys that are qualified but do not qualify to MACP does not constitute the central issue in the petition.
The bench then questioned Venkatraman about the business rules of the competent authority and who decided the OROP.
The ASG said that the notification is an action taken by the cabinet of the union, which has led to the information.
The bench stated they’d like to review the note that culminated in the policy decision, which Venkatraman noted that he could keep in the court record; however, it is for the court’s view only.
Justice Kant said that the Centre was fully aware that the MACP existed when it issued the notice and was incomplete knowledge that it would benefit only a small percentage of former service members who would help in the OROP.
Venkatraman stated that the previous government failed to fulfill its promise on OROP; however, the government did come out with a plan and attempted to implement it.
“OROP cannot be a legal term; it’s an artifact. It is a law that is not arbitrary. The government has already spent over 50 million. Perhaps after five years, we can re-formulate our formula,” the ASG declared.
The bench stated that petitioners assert that, by linking OROP with MACP, the Centre has diminished the benefits significantly, and the premise of OROP is eventually ineffective.
Referring to the previous announcement from the ASG that they had taken the mean of the top and lowest pensions with the same rank and that those who were below were raised and those that were higher were retained, Justice Chandrachud said that the Centre was not able to bring down the most prestigious pension holder because they were protected by law.
The bench said that your policy is to give one rank and one pension for the soul and heart.
What occurred is that you offered different pensions because MACP has served as an obstacle to the equalization of pensions?
Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi and advocate Balaji Srinivasan, on behalf of the plaintiff Indian Ex-servicemen Movement (IESM), stated that the real essence of the Centre’s arguments is that they aren’t likely to offer OROP; however, they will receive one rank that differs in pension.
“They claimed that they could have used 10 years to review the periodicity; however, they chose to review it for five years.
The Minister’s speech in the House is not legally binding; however, what is the morality of such a declaration made.
What policy has they stated that MACP should not be taken into the equation? They have made arguments that go beyond the boundaries of policy,” the senator said.
The bench stated that it couldn’t issue a mandamus to enforce a decision made by the Parliament.
According to our judgment, the minister’s declaration made during a budgetary speech is not binding.
We’ll be turning over seventy years’ worth of lawful precedents on their face if we make it happen?
The hearing was inconclusive. It will resume on the 23rd of February.
This past Tuesday, the highest court had inquired of the Centre whether, having an agreement in principle with OROP the OROP, it would automatically reconsider its decision to transfer any future pension increases to pensioners.
On the 11th of July of 2016, the highest court issued a notice of the complaint that was filed through IEMS by lawyer Balaji Srinivasan seeking implementation of OROP following the recommendations of the Koshyari Committee with an automatic annual review, as opposed to the current procedure of periodic review every five years.
The IESM has taken on the policy of the Centre to conduct a regular review of pensions every five years, claiming this is a reduction of the February 26th, 2014 announcement by the government, in which the change in pensions would automatically be handed over to former pensioners annually.
