The Supreme Court of India refused to interfere with the government’s 2015 ‘One Rank One Pension’ (OROP) scheme in a key judgment delivered on March 16, 2022. This decision addressed long-standing demands from ex-servicemen for uniform pensions based on rank and service length, regardless of retirement date.
*Background of OROP Policy*
OROP aims to ensure that armed forces personnel retiring with the same rank and years of service receive identical pensions, irrespective of their retirement date.
Discontinued in 1973, the policy was revived by the Union Government in November 2015 as an election promise, using 2013 as the base year for pension calculations via the average of minimum and maximum salaries for each rank. Petitioners, including ex-servicemen associations, challenged the scheme as discriminatory under Articles 14 (equality) and 21 (right to life) of the Constitution. They argued it created unequal classes: pre-2014 retirees received lower pensions based on 2013 salaries, while post-2014 retirees got higher amounts tied to last-drawn
pay, violating the spirit of OROP and ignoring the Koshyari Committee recommendations.
*Key Arguments in Court*
Petitioners claimed the 2015 notification arbitrarily fixed pensions for earlier retirees at 2013 levels, leading to disparities despite identical service profiles. The government defended it as a balanced policy decision, with pensions equalized every five years for all retirees under a uniform formula.
Ex-servicemen petitioners challenged the government’s implementation of the One Rank One Pension (OROP) scheme, arguing it deviated from its core promise.
*Core Violations Claimed*
Petitioners contended the scheme violated Articles 14 (equality), 15, and 21 (right to life) of the Constitution by creating discriminatory classes among retirees of the same rank and service length. They highlighted that senior soldiers drew less pension than juniors, directly breaching OROP’s foundational principle.
*Pension Calculation Flaws*
A key grievance was the use of 2013 as the base year and averaging minimum-maximum pensions, which fixed lower amounts for pre-2014 retirees while later ones benefited from higher pay scales. This led to anomalies where
same-rank personnel received varying pensions, with no automatic revisions tied to future enhancements.
*Periodic Review Issues*
They argued the five-year review cycle discriminated against older retirees, failing to bridge gaps dynamically and ignoring Koshyari Committee recommendations for
full uniformity. Petitioners invoked precedents like Union of India v. SPS Vains (2008), deeming class-within-class pension fixes unconstitutional.
*The Union of India defended the 2015 One Rank One Pension (OROP) scheme implementation against
ex-servicemen’s challenges.*
*Policy as Executive Prerogative*
The government argued that pension formulation is a matter of executive policy, not justiciable under Articles 14 or 21, as courts cannot dictate fiscal or administrative choices like base year selection (2013) or averaging methods. They emphasized judicial restraint, stating no
constitutional right exists to identical pensions for same-rank retirees across varying service eras.
*Uniform Application Across Retirees*
Countering discrimination claims, the Union asserted the scheme applies a single OROP definition universally: pensions equalized every five years for all, using the same formula without favoring any group. Pre-2014 retirees receive bridged gaps via notional pay revisions, ensuring no arbitrary classification.
*Fiscal and Practical Balance*
The government highlighted the massive financial burden—over Rs 10,000 crore annually—and defended the scheme as a pragmatic revision of the Koshyari Committee’s suggestions, balancing ex-servicemen welfare with national budget constraints. They rejected demands for dynamic linking to future pay commissions as unsustainable
*Court’s Reasoning and Ruling*
A bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Surya Kant ruled that the policy was not arbitrary or discriminatory. The same OROP definition applied universally, with
periodic five-year reviews for everyone—no special automatic adjustments for any group. The court emphasized judicial restraint in policy matters, stating it lacked jurisdiction to substitute the government’s choice of 2013 as the cut-off or the averaging method for pension computation. There is no constitutional right mandating
identical pensions for same-rank retirees; such decisions fall under executive policy
*Ruling on Constitutionality*
Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Surya Kant found no constitutional infirmity in the OROP notification dated November 7, 2015, ruling it neither arbitrary nor
discriminatory under Articles 14 or 21. The same OROP definition—uniform pension for same rank and service length, revised every five years—applies to all retirees regardless of retirement date, creating no unequal classes.
*Judicial Restraint Emphasized*
The bench stressed limited scope for judicial interference in executive policy decisions, such as choosing 2013 as the base year or averaging min-max salaries for pensions.
No legal mandate requires identical pensions for
same-rank personnel across eras; fiscal implications (e.g.,
Rs 1.45 lakh crore extra burden) justify the government’s balanced approach.
*Directives Issued*
The Court ordered re-fixation of pensions from July 1, 2019 (end of first five-year cycle), with arrears paid within three months. A subsequent July 2022 review petition was dismissed, affirming the original verdict with no errors found.
*Aftermath and Review Dismissal*
In July 2022, the Supreme Court dismissed a review petition by the Indian Ex-Servicemen Movement, upholding the original verdict and rejecting further challenges to the 2015 notification. Later rulings in 2023 directed the government to clear arrears worth Rs 28,000 crore for 2019-2022 by February 2024, reinforcing compliance with the scheme
