One Rank, One Pension : Supreme Court finds no Constitutional infirmity in OROP

Case Title: Indian Ex Servicemen Movement (An All India Federation Of Military Veterans Organisation Represented Vs. Union Of India Department Of Exservicemen Welfare Ministry Of Defence Secretary| Writ Petition (Civil) 419/2016

Headnotes from the judgment:

One Rank One Pension – No constitutional infirmity in the OROP principle as defined by the communication dated 7 November 2015 – The definition of OROP is uniformly applicable to all the pensioners irrespective of the date of retirement – The cut-off date is used only for the purpose of determining the base salary for the calculation of pension- Varying pension payable to officers of the same rank retiring before and after 1 July 2014 either due to MACP or the different base salary used for the calculation of pension cannot be held arbitrary. (Para 49)

Service Law – Pension – principles governing pensions and cut-off dates summarized – All pensioners who hold the same rank may not for all purposes form a homogenous class – The benefit of a new element in a pensionary scheme can be prospectively applied. However, the scheme cannot bifurcate a homogenous group based on a cut-off date- Same principle of computation of pensions must be applied uniformly to a homogenous class – It is not a legal mandate that pensioners who held the same rank must be given the same amount of pension. The varying benefits that may be applicable to certain personnel which would also impact the pension payable need not be equalized with the rest of the personnel. (Para 48)

Legitimate Expectation – A facet of Article 14 of the Constitution – The doctrine of legitimate expectations can be invoked if a representation made by a public body leads an individual to believe that they would be a recipient of a substantive benefit. [Referred to State of Jharkhand v. Brahmputra Metallics Ltd., Ranchi 2020 SCC OnLine SC 968 ] (Para 26)

Service Law – The manner in which and the period over which revisions should take place of pensions, salaries and other financial benefits is a pure question of policy. (Para 37)

Constitution of India, 1950 ; Article 32, 226 – Judicial Review in policy matters – Most questions of policy involve complex considerations of not only technical and economic factors but also require balancing competing interests for which democratic reconciliation rather than adjudication is the best remedy. Further, an increased reliance on judges to solve matters of pure policy diminishes the role of other political organs in resolving contested issues of social and political policy, which require a democratic dialogue. This is not to say that this Court will shy away from setting aside policies that impinge on constitutional rights. Rather it is to provide a clear-eyed role of the function that a court serves in a democracy. (Para 46)

Click here to download the judgment