SC reserves judgement on Indian Ex-Servicemen movement plea relating to OROP in defence forces
Feb 23, 2022
New Delhi [India], February 23 : Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved judgement on Indian Ex-servicemen movement plea relating to One Rank One Pension (OROP) in the defence forces.
A bench of Supreme Court that included justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant, and Vikram Nath reserved the judgement after hearing all parties related to the case.
Additional Solicitor General, appearing for Centre apprised the Court about the affidavit filed by the government in response to a query raised by it.
The Centre apprised that that Finance Minister's speech dated February 17, 2014, was not based on any decision or recommendation by the then Union Cabinet.
The Central Government in its affidavit said that the Centre while framing the One Rank, One Pension (OROP) regime has not brought out any discrimination between the defence personnel who are in the same rank with the same length of service.
In its affidavit, the Centre said, "The petitioners are seeking an OROP on merely same rank overlooking the same length of service."
The Centre has filed an affidavit in response to the top court query which was hearing a petition filed by the Indian Ex-servicemen Movement (IESM).
The petitioner IESM challenged the government's policy of reviewing the pension of retired military personnel once in five years. The petitioner claimed that the government has defeated the purpose of the OROP scheme by linking OROP and Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP).
The Centre had further submitted that the contention of the Petitioners defeats one of the core values of the OROP, which is not only the 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 the same rank and same length of service. It is important to highlight the expression "same" appears twice as "same rank" and "same length of service". By any stretch of the imagination, it cannot be read as the same rank different length of service or same length of service different ranks, " the Centre submitted.
