The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned the Narendra Modi government's handling of the issue of future enhancements in pensions of retired armed forces personnel.
The Indian Ex-servicemen Movement (IESM) had moved the Supreme Court against the Centre's notification of November 7, 2015, on the One Rank, One Pension (OROP) issue. Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for IESM, argued the 2015 notification was arbitrary and mala fide as it creates a class within a class and effectively granted one rank different pensions.
IESM is demanding that OROP be automatically revised annually instead of the current policy of a review every five years.
On Wednesday, the bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath noted there had been no statutory definition of OROP yet.
“… OROP is not a statutory term, it is a term of art,” Chandrachud was quoted as saying by NDTV.
The Times of India quoted the bench as saying “Their (petitioners’) contention is that there is a discrepancy between what was said in Parliament and the policy which ultimately came. The question is whether that amounts to a violation of Article 14. Your (Centre’s) hyperbole on the OROP policy presented a much rosier picture than what is actually given to the pensioners.”
NDTV reported “Ahmadi said veterans who retired in 2014 are drawing more pension than those who retired between 1965 and 2013, which defeats the purpose of OROP. The Centre has attributed the difference in pension to a process called Modified Assured Career Progression, or MACP, which provides salary hike for those who have not been promoted for decades.”
The matter will next be heard on February 23.
