SC pulls up Centre on OROP: Examining the policy and why the matter has reached apex court

The Supreme Court pulled up the Centre on the issue of ‘One Rank One Pension’ (OROP) policy, saying it ‘presents a much rosier picture’ than what is actually given to military pensioners.

As the apex court hears this issue, let’s understand what OROP is, how it benefits ex-servicemen and what the case is all about:

OROP explained

The ‘one rank, one pension’ rule means that retired soldiers of the same rank and length of service will receive the same pension, regardless of when they retire.

As of now, the date of retirement determines the amount of pension. With each Pay Commission coming up with its recommendations every 10 years, the military veterans who retire early, receive less pension as compared to those who retired later with the same rank and length of service.

Ex-servicemen had been demanding for OROP for almost four decades, and that request came through in 2018 when Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced the ‘One Rank One Pension’ scheme for ex-servicemen.

The then defence minister Manohar Parrikar had said, “In simple terms, OROP implies that uniform pension be paid to the Armed Forces personnel retiring in the same rank with the same length of service, regardless of their date of retirement. Future enhancements in the rates of pension would be automatically passed on to the past pensioners. This implies bridging the gap between the rate of pension of current and past pensioners at periodic intervals.”

“Under this definition, it has been decided that the gap between rate of pension of current pensioners and past pensioners will be bridged every five years,” he had said.

Ex-servicemen drawing pensions will benefit from the OROP scheme, especially those who retired before 2006. Why? Because at present, pensioners who retired before 2006 draw less pension than their counterparts and even their juniors. The scheme will benefit all three services — air force, navy and army.

OROP case in SC

The OROP matter reached the Supreme Court through a petition filed by the Indian Ex-Servicemen Movement accused the government of reneging on its promise to implement OROP.

The petitioner said OROP, despite assurances by the minister on the floor of the House and Executive decisions which had become final, had become ‘One Rank Different Pension’.

The bone of contention in the petition is the government’s move on 7 November, 2015, that equalisation of pension would happen periodically every five years.

The petition said the equalisation of pension should be automatic, that is whenever there is disparity.

But the government has said the equalisation would happen every five years. The petitioners have said that a gap of five years would leave them at a great disadvantage.

They said periodic equalisation would “cause great injustice to 24 lakh ex-servicemen, 6.5 lakh war widows and veteran widows and their families by creating a situation of One Rank Different Pension’.

NDTV reported that the Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned the Centre whether it had gone back on its decision to pass on future enhancements in pension automatically, after agreeing to OROP in principle.

“Problem is your hyperbole on the policy presents a much rosier picture than what is actually given,” Justice DY Chandrachud said, adding, “We have to deal with the fact that there is no statutory definition of OROP. It’s a term of art and a policy decision. Their (petitioners) contention is that there is a discrepancy between what was said in Parliament and the policy that ultimately came. The question is whether that amounts to a violation of Article 14. Your hyperbole on the OROP presented a much rosier picture than what is actually given,” the apex court was quoted as saying by The Telegraph.

The matter will be heard next on 23 February.

With inputs from agencies

Read all the Latest News, Trending News, Cricket News, Bollywood News,
India News and Entertainment News here. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.