SC questions Centre over policy on One Rank, One Pension

The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned the Centre over its policy on One Rank, One Pension (OROP) in the armed forces, saying the problem was hyperbole on it presented a much rosier picture than what was actually given. It also quizzed the government on the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) scheme.

A bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath sought to know from the Centre how it implemented OROP, and what benefit had been extended to servicemen.

Additional Solicitor General ASG N Venkatraman, appearing for the Centre, submitted the petitioners wanted the scheme to be reviewed automatically and not periodically as they said its review once in five years is not acceptable.

He also referred to a tabular chart citing a comparison between sepoys, who retired after 2015 and before 2015.

The bench queried suppose somebody retired in 1990 and the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) scheme came in 2006, the rank will still remain but the officer will get the different pay scale. The ASG urged the top court not to bring MACP into the matter.

The bench, however, asked him, "We want to know how many people have got MACP. You are saying persons who have MACP are a different specific class."

The bench said MACP is important for OROP, and if 80% of sepoys get MACP, then will they get OROP.

The bench said, "It seems MACP is a barrier for OROP."

Justice Chandrachud said petitioners' contention is regarding the discrepancy between parliamentary discussion and the policy, which ultimately was brought it.

The ASG said the OROP is a term of art which was defined with nuance and without any arbitrariness.

The bench said the petitioners are claiming that by connecting OROP with MACP the government has reduced the benefits substantially and the principle of OROP got defeated.

The bench asked the ASG to show the figure when MACP was introduced, how many got benefit of the scheme and how many are eligible to get benefit of OROP.

Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, along with advocate Balaji Srinivasan, appearing for Indian Ex-servicemen Movement (IESM), claimed the sum and substance of the Centre's arguments is that they are not inclined to give OROP, but they will give one rank different pensions.

The court fixed the matter for further hearing next week.

The petitioners have questioned the November 7, 2015, notification issued by the Centre while implementing OROP.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that the government's decision is arbitrary and mala fide, as it creates a class within a class and effectively grants one rank, different pensions.

Watch latest videos by DH here: