Validity of the “One Rank One Pension” Scheme

 FACTS 

In this case, the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution addresses a challenge to the manner in which the “One Rank One Pension” policy for ex-servicemen of defence forces has been implemented by the first respondent2 through a letter dated 7 November 2015 issued to the Chiefs of three defence forces. The letter defines OROP as the payment of uniform pension to armed services personnel retiring in the same rank with the same length of service, irrespective of the date of retirement. OROP, in terms of the letter, aims to bridge the gap between the rate of pension of current and past pensioners at periodic intervals. The petitioners contend that in the course of implementation, the principle of OROP has been replaced by ‘one rank multiple pensions’ for persons with the same length of service. The petitioners contend that the initial definition of OROP was altered by the first respondent and, instead of an automatic revision of the rates of pension, the revision now would take place at periodic intervals.

 WHAT DID THE COURT SAY? 

This Court held that such a disparity in the pension payable to two groups of officers occupying the same rank of Major General based on those retiring before or after 1 January 1996 violated Article 14. It was in this backdrop that this Court directed that the pay of all pensioners in the rank of Major General and its equivalent rank in the other two wings of the Defence services should be notionally fixed at the rate given to similar officers of the same rank after the revision of pay scales with effect from 1 January 1996, and thereafter to compute the pensionary benefits with prospective effect from the date of the writ petition.