Read Time: 09 minutes

While upholding the central government’s implementation of One Rank One Pension (OROP) policy for the Armed Forces, the Supreme Court has held that the Koshyari Committee Report which had proposed the adoption of OROP in principle, cannot be enforced as a statement of government policy.

Before the OROP was adopted as a guiding statement of policy in November 2015, discussions both within and outside Parliament had taken place.

The Koshyari Committee had submitted its report on December 10, 2011, in which it had said that OROP implies that a “uniform pension be paid to the armed forces personnel retiring in the same rank with the same length of service irrespective of their date of retirement and any future enhancements in the rate of pension to be automatically passed on to the past pensioners”. 

Justice DY Chandrachud in his judgment notes that the Koshyari Committee Report is a report submitted to the Rajya Sabha by the Committee on Petitions and it cannot be enforced as a statement of government policy. He further opined,

"....Report can be relied upon to indicate the background of the adoption of OROP. The report furnishes the historical background, the reason for the demand, and the view of the Parliamentary Committee which proposed the adoption of OROP for personnel belonging to the armed forces. Beyond this, the Koshyari Committee Report cannot be construed as embodying a statement of governmental policy."

While dealing with the submission that a revision of OROP should be automatic, the top court undertook the interpretation of the communication dated February 26, 2014 to Controller General of Defence Accounts (CGDA) which stated that “any future enhancement in the rates of pension to be automatically passed on to the past pensioners”. The Court thus held,

"The expression “to be automatically passed on” immediately follows upon the words “any future enhancement in the rates of pension”. When read together contextually, it signifies that the rates of pension would be passed on to past pensioners without any administrative impediments. The expression ‘automatically passed on’ cannot be construed as a commitment with reference to any period of time for the computation of benefits."

It was further held that the manner in which and the period over which revisions should take place of pensions, salaries and other financial benefits was a pure question of policy. Accordingly, the Court said that the decision of the Central Government to revise the pension every five years cannot be held to violate the precepts underlying Article 14.

The Court also undertook to evaluate if the OROP policy was manifestly arbitrary or capricious.

In this regard, the Court relied on the following principles governing pensions and cut-off dates:

• All pensioners who hold the same rank may not for all purposes form a homogenous class;
• The benefit of a new element in a pensionary scheme can be prospectively applied. However, the scheme cannot bifurcate a homogenous group based on a cut-off date;
• It is not a legal mandate that pensioners who held the same rank must be given the same amount of pension.

Applying the aforementioned principles, the bench opined thus, "We find no constitutional infirmity in the OROP principle".

Article 32 and Executive's policy decisions:

While concluding its 64-page judgment, the top court has opined that the canvas which is sought to be traversed in the proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution by the petitioners trenched upon a domain which was reserved for executive policy.

"We must remember that adjudication cannot serve as a substitute for policy", said the Court.

Furthermore, noting that most questions of policy involve complex considerations of not only technical and economic factors but also require balancing competing interests for which democratic reconciliation rather than adjudication is the best remedy, the Court said,

"...an increased reliance on judges to solve matters of pure policy diminishes the role of other political organs in resolving contested issues of social and political policy, which require a democratic dialogue. This is not to say that this Court will shy away from setting aside policies that impinge on constitutional rights. Rather it is to provide a clear-eyed role of the function that a court serves in a democracy."

Cause Title: Indian Ex Servicemen Movement & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors.