Can hardship of ex-servicemen be obviated if periodic revision reduced from five years SC
New Delhi Feb 23 PTI The Supreme Court Wednesday asked the Centre whether the hardships of ex-servicemen be obviated to a certain extent if the periodic revision of One Rank-One Pension OROP is reduced from five years to a lesser periodA bench of Justices DY Chandrachud Surya Kant and Vikram Nath which reserved its verdict on a plea filed by the Indian Ex-servicemen Movement IESM against Centres formula of OROP said that whatever it will decide it will be on the conceptual ground and not on figuresIt said when you revise after five years the arrears of five years are not taken into account The hardships of ex-servicemen can be obviated to a certain extent if the period is reduced from five years to a lesser periodThe top court said When we will decide the issue we will not delve into the figures rather it will be on the conceptual ground Figures are always a dangerous territory to go into Additional Solicitor General N Venkataraman appearing for Centre said when the revision takes place after five years the maximum last drawn pay which has all the factors is taken into account with lowest in the bracket and it is the golden mean which is being givenWhen we framed the policy we didnt want anyone post-Independence to be left behind The equalisation was done We covered the entire past 60-70 years Now to amend it through the courts direction the implications are not known to us Anything with finance and economics has to be considered with caution Period of five years is reasonable and it has financial implications also the ASG said Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi and advocate Balaji Srinivasan appearing for IESM said that the court has to keep in mind that it relates to older soldiers who fought man to man unlike soldiers of todays time who have sophisticated armsIt is the older soldiers who need the OROP the most If we accept the submission of the Centre it will be like allowing the illegality to continue which the court wants to root it out he saidVenkatraman submitted that the petitioner wants the government to look into the future and decide on the pension which cannot be done We have bridged the gap of Assured Career Progression ACP and Modified Assured Career Progression MACP The policymakers in their wisdom decided that the revision should be after five years and not ten years he saidAhmadi reading from his rejoinder affidavit said that the communication dated November 7 2015 dehors the earlier executive decision taken at a much higher level and is thus palpably arbitrary being inconsistent with the same He said reading the communication of November 7 2015 in isolation is erroneous and the notification dated December 14 2015 substitutes the concept of automatic enhancement of pension with bridging the gap with periodic intervals Even assuming that the policy decision dated November 7 2015 is only encompassed in the notification dated December 14 2015 the same is arbitrary because by introducing the concept of periodic intervals the period cannot be so large so as to make the concept of one rank-one pension illusory and in effect decree one rank different pensions he saidAhmadi added that this would be the practical effect of equalizing the pension after a period of five years and the equalization after five years is arbitrary and does not have statutory sanction as the same is not part of the notification December 14 2015He added that the fixation of the calendar year 2013 and the effective date being fixed as of July 1 2014 is yet again arbitrary and will result in one rank different pension and is not sanctioned by the notification dated December 14 2015 It is a well-known fact that the budget speech is made in Parliament after receiving prior approval from the Prime Minister and his cabinet Rejecting the statement made by the then finance minister in his budget speech reflects poorly on the morality of the government Ahmadi saidOn February 21 the Centre had said that the statement on in-principle approval of OROP for defence services was made by then Finance Minister P Chidambaram during his interim-budget speech on February 17 2014 without any recommendation by the then union cabinetRespondent respectfully submits that this statement of the then Finance Minister dated February 17 2014 is not based on any decision or recommendation by the then Union Cabinet On the other hand the cabinet secretariat conveyed the approval of the Prime Minister in terms of Rules 12 of the Government of India Transaction of Business Rules 1961 on November 7 2015 the affidavit has saidThe clarification was given by the Centre after the top court had asked the government to clarify whether the statement made by the then Finance Minister on February 17 2014 was based on any decision or recommendation by the Union CabinetOn February 16 the top court had said that Centres hyperbole on the OROP policy presented a much rosier picture than what is actually given to the pensioners of the Armed forcesOn July 11 2016 the top court had issued notice on the plea filed by IEMS through advocate Balaji Srinivasan seeking implementation of OROP as recommended by the Koshyari Committee with an automatic annual revision instead of the current policy of periodic review once in five years PTI MNL MNL RKS RKS
New Delhi Feb 23 PTI The Supreme Court Wednesday asked the Centre whether the hardships of ex-servicemen be obviated to a certain extent if the periodic revision of One Rank-One Pension OROP is reduced from five years to a lesser periodA bench of Justices DY Chandrachud Surya Kant and Vikram Nath which reserved its verdict on a plea filed by the Indian Ex-servicemen Movement IESM against Centres formula of OROP said that whatever it will decide it will be on the conceptual ground and not on figuresIt said when you revise after five years the arrears of five years are not taken into account The hardships of ex-servicemen can be obviated to a certain extent if the period is reduced from five years to a lesser periodThe top court said When we will decide the issue we will not delve into the figures rather it will be on the conceptual ground Figures are always a dangerous territory to go into Additional Solicitor General N Venkataraman appearing for Centre said when the revision takes place after five years the maximum last drawn pay which has all the factors is taken into account with lowest in the bracket and it is the golden mean which is being givenWhen we framed the policy we didnt want anyone post-Independence to be left behind The equalisation was done We covered the entire past 60-70 years Now to amend it through the courts direction the implications are not known to us Anything with finance and economics has to be considered with caution Period of five years is reasonable and it has financial implications also the ASG said Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi and advocate Balaji Srinivasan appearing for IESM said that the court has to keep in mind that it relates to older soldiers who fought man to man unlike soldiers of todays time who have sophisticated armsIt is the older soldiers who need the OROP the most If we accept the submission of the Centre it will be like allowing the illegality to continue which the court wants to root it out he saidVenkatraman submitted that the petitioner wants the government to look into the future and decide on the pension which cannot be done We have bridged the gap of Assured Career Progression ACP and Modified Assured Career Progression MACP The policymakers in their wisdom decided that the revision should be after five years and not ten years he saidAhmadi reading from his rejoinder affidavit said that the communication dated November 7 2015 dehors the earlier executive decision taken at a much higher level and is thus palpably arbitrary being inconsistent with the same He said reading the communication of November 7 2015 in isolation is erroneous and the notification dated December 14 2015 substitutes the concept of automatic enhancement of pension with bridging the gap with periodic intervals Even assuming that the policy decision dated November 7 2015 is only encompassed in the notification dated December 14 2015 the same is arbitrary because by introducing the concept of periodic intervals the period cannot be so large so as to make the concept of one rank-one pension illusory and in effect decree one rank different pensions he saidAhmadi added that this would be the practical effect of equalizing the pension after a period of five years and the equalization after five years is arbitrary and does not have statutory sanction as the same is not part of the notification December 14 2015He added that the fixation of the calendar year 2013 and the effective date being fixed as of July 1 2014 is yet again arbitrary and will result in one rank different pension and is not sanctioned by the notification dated December 14 2015 It is a well-known fact that the budget speech is made in Parliament after receiving prior approval from the Prime Minister and his cabinet Rejecting the statement made by the then finance minister in his budget speech reflects poorly on the morality of the government Ahmadi saidOn February 21 the Centre had said that the statement on in-principle approval of OROP for defence services was made by then Finance Minister P Chidambaram during his interim-budget speech on February 17 2014 without any recommendation by the then union cabinetRespondent respectfully submits that this statement of the then Finance Minister dated February 17 2014 is not based on any decision or recommendation by the then Union Cabinet On the other hand the cabinet secretariat conveyed the approval of the Prime Minister in terms of Rules 12 of the Government of India Transaction of Business Rules 1961 on November 7 2015 the affidavit has saidThe clarification was given by the Centre after the top court had asked the government to clarify whether the statement made by the then Finance Minister on February 17 2014 was based on any decision or recommendation by the Union CabinetOn February 16 the top court had said that Centres hyperbole on the OROP policy presented a much rosier picture than what is actually given to the pensioners of the Armed forcesOn July 11 2016 the top court had issued notice on the plea filed by IEMS through advocate Balaji Srinivasan seeking implementation of OROP as recommended by the Koshyari Committee with an automatic annual revision instead of the current policy of periodic review once in five years PTI MNL MNL RKS RKS
