SC says no Constitutional infirmity in OROP policy introduced by govt

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that there was no constitutional infirmity in the "One Rank One Pension" policy introduced by the government.

A three-judge Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath said that definition, as argued by the petitioner, is not found to be arbitrary.

The Court said that it does not find any constitutional infirmity on the OROP principle and the notification dated November 7, 2015.

The Court disposed of the petition filed by the Indian Ex-Servicemen Movement seeking implementation of the "One Rank One Pension" (OROP) in the Defense Forces. The petitioner has questioned the Central government's notification dated November 7, 2015.

The Supreme Court on February 23 reserved judgment on the Indian Ex-Servicemen Movement plea relating to One Rank One Pension (OROP) in defense forces.

The Centre had apprised that Finance Minister's speech dated February 17, 2014, was not based on any decision or recommendation by the then Union Cabinet.

The Central Government in its affidavit had said that the Centre while framing the One Rank, One Pension (OROP) regime has not brought out any discrimination between the defence personnel who are in the same rank with the same length of service.

In its affidavit, the Centre had said, "The petitioners are seeking an OROP on merely same rank overlooking the same length of service."

The Centre had filed an affidavit in response to the top court query which was hearing a petition filed by the Indian Ex-servicemen Movement (IESM).

The Centre had further submitted that the contention of the Petitioners defeats one of the core values of the OROP, which is not only the same rank but with the same length of service.

"This pair cannot be impaired. One cannot take only the same rank and ignore the length of service and similarly one cannot merely take the length of service and ignore the rank. The core parameter is the same rank and same length of service. It is important to highlight the expression "same" appears twice as "same rank" and "same length of service". By any stretch of the imagination, it cannot be read as the same rank different length of service or same length of service different ranks, " the Centre submitted.

( With inputs from ANI )

Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor