OROP - The Saga Continues

Media reports that the Defence Minister and Finance Minister were to meet on 3rd June 2015 to arrive at a solution on the OROP issue.

It is understood that the meeting took place and was attended also by the Defence Secretary, Expenditure Secretary and Secretary, Deptt of Ex-Servicemens' Welfare but what exactly transpired is not known.

So, hold your breath for some good news on yet another "tareek" after all we have Kargil Divas in July and Independence Day in August and........etc etc   

Debate on OROP : CNN-IBN on 01 Jun 2015

Last evening, I was on a panel to debate OROP and allied aspects on CNN-IBN. My fellow panelists were Mr Ajay Prasad, a retired Defence Secretary, Mr Nitin Gohkale, a Defence Analyst, Lt Gen Raj Kadyan, former DCOAS and Chairman IESM (not of the Maj Gen Satbir Singh faction?).

As the comments of all panelists would be on Youtube, I will not belabour the issues, and misquote them (relying on a nearly 69 years old memory!).

My first comment aired on TV was that if the bureaucrats of MoD, Def (Fin) and Deptt of Expenditure, MoF cannot come out with the methodology and the exact amount, why doesn't the Prime Minister, who praises the Armed Forces, hand over the problem to Services HQ, obtain a draft Govt letter, then discuss it, and issue his orders to pay OROP. I gave the example of the DGL prepared by Services HQ in the Rank Pay case, wherein two of the four issues were upheld by then Attorney General for India, the late Shri Goolam Vahanvati. 

[The case is sub-judice on the other two issues which might be resolved in Contempt Petition (C) No. 328 of 2013 being heard from 14 July 2015 onwards.]

My second comment was that there seems an error in the figures given to the Defence Minister that in FY 2014-15 the OROP would cost Rs 8300 crores (approx) and it would balloon up to Rs 22, 000 crores. My reason for doubting the later figure is because of the 3% annual increment. It would be Rs 8549 crores and not a paisa more!

Unless, unless, the bureaucrats have had the Defence Minister let the cat out of the bag. The cat is that the 7th CPC would recommend a 250% increase in pay and the Govt has already accepted it! Only in that case Rs 8300 crores will become Rs 20750 crores and Rs 8549 crores will become Rs 21372.5 crores, though the recommendations would be applicable w.e.f.1.1.2016 i.e 3 months.

My third comment (and backed by Shri Nitin Gohkale) was that the recommendations of the 6th CPC for lateral absorption of Armed Forces personnel was accepted and approved by the UPA Govt but held back due to objections of the Ministry of Home Affairs.

*              *               *

      

My friend and Excel expert Brig (retd) Vijay Raheja told me that the Defence Minister is not far off the mark because arrears from 1.4.2014 till 31 Mar 2016 might add up to Rs 20,000 crores. My take is if prevailing 6th CPC Pay in the Pay bands remain then arrears will be 

2014-15                     Rs 8300 crores                      Total
                                                                      Arrears Rs 8300 crores
2015-16                     Rs 8549 crores
                                                                     Arrears Rs 16489 crores
2016-17                     Rs 8805 crores
                                                                     Arrears  Rs 25654 crores
2017-18                     Rs 9069 crores
                                                                     Arrears  Rs 34723 crores 
2018-19                     Rs 9341 crores 
                                                                                                                   Arrears  Rs44064 crores

Still lot less than Rs 62396 crores exempted by Finance Minister in FY 2014-15 to Corporates by way of tax exemptions and incentives!   

Quad Erat Demonstrandum meaning "which had to be proven"

ONE RANK ONE PENSION

Fairness is what justice is really about.

-        Justice Potter Stewart

Note: Information quoted in this post are sourced from the internet or obtained by the author through the RTI Act, 2005.

OROP isn’t 60 years Old Issue

Koshiyari Committee, at Page 14, brings out the chronology of OROP as follows: -

1973 first considered by 3^rd CPC,

1986 considered again by 4^th CPC

1991 considered by Sharad Pawar committee

1996 considered again by 5^th CPC

2003 considered by Inter-Ministerial Committee

2005 considered by Group of Ministers

2006 considered by 6^th CPC

To quote the Koshiyari Committee (page 14) – “…There is merit in the demand for One Rank One Pension by Armed Forces Personnel, otherwise the matter would not have been considered time and again by various committees of the Government and Central Pay Commissions. It could have been rejected once and for all and principle of res judicata would have been applied to this demand…..”

OROP – The Commitment by UPA & by NDA

Definition, based on the Koshiyari Committee Report, was spelt out in meetings taken by Shri A K Antony, Defence Minister, in the UPA Govt as follows: - 

–      Same rank, same years of qualifying service, same amount of pension irrespective of date of retirement

–      Applicable from 01 Apr 2014

[It was reiterated by the BJP led NDA Govt i.e by Defence Minister that the definition given by the Koshiyari Committee remains.]

Working Methodology

The UPA Govt’s MoD set up a Joint Working Group (JWG) headed by then CGDA (now FA (DS) & Secretary Def/Fin) and comprising officers of MoD, Service HQ and tasked to

•        Furnish the implementation order in consultation with Service HQ [who in turn may appropriately consult ex-servicemen], Department of ESW, and MoD (Fin) as conveyed vide MoD/DESW No. 12(01)/2014-D(Pen/Pol) dated 26 Feb 2014.

Modalities: RM’s meeting 26 Feb 2014 and thereafter

•        OROP implies uniform pension be paid to the Armed Forces personnel retiring in the same rank with the same length of service irrespective of the date of retirement, and

•        Any further enhancement in the rates of pension to be automatically passed on to past pensioners.

•        Implies bridging the gap between the rate of pension of the current pensioners and the past pensioners 

The last meeting of the JWG was at the Joint presentation to then Defence Minister Shri Arun Jaitley on 12 Jun 2014. Till date there isn’t any information supplied by CPIO, MoD-DESW whether the modalities have been changed as repeated requests for information are stone-walled with the response that the file is under submission to higher authorities and information would be made available when the file is available.

The Numbers Game

Plato said “A good decision is based on knowledge and not on numbers.” For OROP numbers do matter but so does knowledge. 25 Lakh ESM, widows and Next of Kin receive 50% or lesser pension if they served the Nation with distinction, lost limbs, minds, even lives if they were unfortunate enough to retire on or before 31^st December 2005.

Koshiyari Committee

ü              The Koshiyari Committee recommended in 2011 that OROP be implemented and that the financial impact would be as follows:-

 

•        Initial (including payment of arrears = Rs 3000 crore

•        Annual recurring expenditure = Rs 1300 crore

–      JCOs & Other Ranks = Rs 1065 crore

–      Officers                      = Rs  235 crore

ü              Not satisfied with the figures made available, the Committee was provided estimates by Ministry of Finance, Deptt of Expenditure as follows: -

•        As on 1.1.2006 filed on 05 Jul 2011 and revised on 01 Aug 2011

•        @10% increase per annum

–      2012-13           Rs 1430 crore

–      2013-14           Rs 1573 crore

–      2014-15           Rs 1730 crore

–      2015-16           Rs 1930 crore

–      2016-16           Rs 2379 crore due to 25% increase in Seventh Central Pay

                           Commission

ü              Recommendations by Cabinet Secretary & Committee of Secretaries in 2012 reinforced the amount required as follows: -

•        Annual expenditure Rs 1400 crore

•        Initial expenditure Rs 8000-9000 crore

ü              Estimates by Controller General of Defence Accounts (CGDA) in April-May 2014 (information under RTI Act 2005 denied by CPIO, O/o CGDA quoting directions of the MoD)

•        Rs 9100 crore was contested by Service HQ on the following grounds: -

–      Transparency required in the methodology adopted by CGDA and its subsidiaries

•        Was enhanced parity of 17 Jan 2013 factored into the estimate?

•        Was different voluntary (pre-mature, in Services terms) retirement ages for officers factored in?

•        Was 15 to 20 years discharge from service for JCOs and ORs factored in?

•        Was OROP calculated for maximum service and maximum rate? 

ü              Calculations by Services HQ

Based on data collected by Air Force Central Accounts Office (AFCAO) for the 5 year period ending 31^st March 2013 of officers and Warrant Ranks/Airmen retiring, being discharged on completion of enrolment period etc 

•        Rs 4500 – 5100 crore if

Ø    all officers, and

Ø    the JCOs/ORs paid as per Group X or Group Y for Warrant Ranks (JCOs/Petty Officers)/OR (Sepoy/Naik/Havildar, Sailors & Airmen) paid as per their Group,

•        Rs 7200 crore if all JCO/OR paid X Group pension (half of Rs 1400 p.m.) 

Complexities

PM as PM-candidate had reiterated his commitment to OROP from September 2013 and later on as PM till date of this article. It appears that the commitment to fulfilling OROP was made in haste and now is the time to repent (for the next 5 years?).  The urgency and stentorian tone has been replaced by vagueness and flies in face of claims of a Govt of transparency and speedy decisions. Did the complexities come to the fore only after the Defence Minister stated that a few administrative steps are left for implementation of OROP.

 If he says that OROP is not as simple as it appears and there are complexities to resolve for quote “a please all solution” unquote, then so be it. However, the following issues come to the mind (thanks to comments by readers of the blog Aerial View): -

Complexity No. 1: -

The time frame for promotions for officers up to the rank of Colonel (and equivalent) has reduced after 2004.

There is a one-time precedent in the 5^th CPC, wherein Majors with 21 years of Commissioned service were entitled to pay of Lt Col in the 22^nd year, though the Rank Pay would be that of Majors. A similar dispensation was neither recommended nor considered by the 6^th CPC in 2006-2008 though Majors were promoted to Lt Col in 13 years and Lt Cols were granted time-bound promotion to Colonels in the 26^th year of service from 2004.

Will the BJP led NDA Govt re-visit the past and grant notional pension of Lt Col to Majors and pension of Colonels to Lt Cols, and consequently OROP, to all those originally promoted as per the old scheme? What about the JCOs and ORs whose the tenure of engagement was changed from 15 years to 20 years some time in year 2000 or so?  

Complexity No. 2: -

In the combined wisdom of the MoD, office of Financial Adviser (Defence Services), Deptt of Defence (Finance), the office of the Controller General of Defence Accounts, and with the approval/concurrence of the Department of Expenditure, MoF, implementation of the recommendations of 6^th Central Pay Commission were ordered vide Special Army Instructions No. 2 of 2008 (and equivalent for Navy & Air Force). In that, the scale for Brigadiers (and equivalents) was specified as follows: -

          Pay in the Pay Band          Rs 37,000 – 67, 000

          Grade Pay                        Rs   8, 900

          Military Service Pay           Rs   6, 000

The combined wisdom hit a hurdle either because the system has a way of having the last laugh. So, in FY 2014-15, there are 4 Brigadier & equivalent officers who are drawing maximum of Pay in the Pay Band of Rs 67, 000 + Grade Pay Rs 8, 900 + MSP of Rs 6, 000 = Rs 81, 900!

But the scales of Major Generals, Lt Generals (and equivalents) were placed in a lower than Rs 81, 900 Pay in the Pay Band and the Army Cdr (and equivalent) draws Rs 80, 000 as his pay in the Apex Scale. So, someone stating it is only four officers appear to be ignorant of certain judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court of India

Judgements/ Orders of the Honourable Supreme Court in the UoI Vs. D S Nakara (17 December 1982) and UoI Vs Maj Gen S P S Vains (09 September 2008) are very clear – a junior cannot draw more pension than a senior i.e the senior’s pension has to be stepped up.    

The flawed wisdom of the FA (DS) & CGDA and the concurrence of the DoE, MoF has taken a knock. There will be more litigation quoting the above judgments and raps on the knuckles as was delivered by the Honourable Supreme Court in CA No. 2996 of 2011 and Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 64 of 2009 in CA No. 5566 of 2008) by the  Honourable Supreme Court on 16 Feb 2015.                 

[Just a stray thought – MoD vide its DFPDS-2015 has made it incumbent on the Chiefs of Army, Navy or Air Force to obtain prior concurrence of the Integrated Financial Adviser (IFA) for a purchase of even Re 1/-. Is it another flash of the wisdom and to expand the empire of the IDAS (Indian Defence Account Service)?]

Contradictions & Politicisation of OROP

Edmund Burke said, “You can never plan the future by the past.” But that appears to be the rule of the day on the issue of OROP.

          The often heated debates on television channels, where ESM panellists watch more bemused than earlier especially after 25 May 2015, reinforce the opinions of Ex-Servicemen that they are being given short shrift. The ESM panellists and audience are left aghast that many of the BJP spokespersons expose their lack of knowledge on modalities of OROP or concentrate their ire to fire away at the Congress spokespersons for not doing anything about OROP for 60 years! And the Congress spokespersons harp on what the Vice President of the party quipped or that BJP has done nothing in 12 months. In the resultant heat and dust it is forgotten that officially the OROP issue started in 1973 i.e. 42 years ago.

          In their reciprocal enthusiasm to score brownie points, it is forgotten that there were Governments other than Congress - V P Singh propped up by BJP (1989-1990), Chandrasekhar (1990-1991), Atal Behari Vajpayee (May 1996-June 1996), Deve Gowda (1996-1997), I K Gujral (1997-1998), and then the Atal Behari Vajpayee led BJP - NDA Govt between 1998 and 2004 (i.e 15 of 42 years after emergence of OROP in 1973).

         

BJP vs Congress in TV Debates

             If the BJP spokespersons could have been more dispassionate, and the Congress spokespersons more knowledgeable, they would have enlightened the audience that Shri Koshiyari (a BJP MP) headed Committee was set up by the UPA in 2010 and its findings were presented in the tenure of UPA (December 2011). That the recommendations were ignored till February 2014 is to the detriment of the UPA, but where was the vocal BJP on the issue of OROP when it that stalled the Parliament for several weeks and months on other issues?

If the BJP did mention OROP in Parliament as often as the impression is being conveyed, there must be something on the record of Parliament after 2011. How has the OROP fared from 2004 in Parliament? Here is the data available on the internet though Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha websites were searched but this author obtained only the following information: -

08 Dec 2004 – Shri Prabhunath Singh (RJD) raises a query but is absent (details not available),

28 Apr 2005 – Dr Col (retd) Dhani Ram Shandil (Shimla - INC) raises a question (details of reply not available)

18 Aug 2006 – Shri Kishan Singh Sanghwan (BJP, deceased 2012) raises a question and Shri B K Handique, MoS Defence replies that OROP is not possible due financial, administrative, and legal reasons as recommended by a Committee of Secretaries

23 Aug 2007 – Shri P K Dhumal (BJP) raises a question (details of reply not available)

26 Feb 2009 – Shri Karan Singh Yadav (Alwar - INC) raises a question (details of reply not available)

21 Aug 2010 – Shri Pratap Singh Bajwa (Gurdaspur – INC) raises a question (details of reply not available)

25 Aug 2010 – Shri Arun Jaitley (BJP) – Non-implementation of OROP by Govt (in his tenures in Rajya Sabha from Feb 2009 to Feb 2014; (source: www.prsindia.ord/mptrack/arunjaitley)

08 Jul 2014 - The principle of One Rank One Pension for the Armed Forces has been accepted by the Government. The modalities for implementation were discussed with various stakeholders and are presently under consideration of the Government. It will be implemented once the modalities are approved by the Government. This information was given by Minister of State for Defence Rao Inderjit Singh in a written reply to Dr T Subbarami Reddy in Rajya Sabha on July 8, 2014. 

8 Nov 2014 - The principle of One Rank One Pension for the Armed forces has been accepted by the Government. The modalities for implementation were discussed with various stakeholders and are presently under consideration of the Government. It will be implemented once the modalities are approved by the Government. No Budget was allocated for the purpose in the Budget 2013-14. Total number of beneficiaries for OROP will be known once the modalities are approved. This information was given by Minister of State for Defence Rao Inderjit Singh in a written reply to Shri Hukum Singh and others in Lok Sabha today.

25 Nov 2014 – Statement in respect of Para (a) to (c) of Rajya Sabha Starred Question No. 31 for 25.11.2014 regarding implementation of One Rank One Pension:

Reply (a) to (c):  The principle of One Rank One Pension for the Armed Forces has been accepted by the Government.  The modalities for implementation were discussed with various stakeholders and are presently under consideration of the Government.  It will be implemented once the modalities are approved by the Government. 

In Conclusion

That the Ex-Servicemen are left as abandoned of hope as before (since 1973), and conveyed by their absence at the felicitation by the two retired IAF officers in Pune, may have prompted the most powerful advisory body, the PMO, or maybe the NSA, to suggest to the PM that he should step in and assuage the ESM. The PM may have been advised that leaving the fire-fighting to the Finance Minister, whose statements on 22 May 2015 contradicted the repeated assurances of the Defence Minister i.e. the left hand did not know or pretended not to know, what the right hand was doing.

It is common knowledge amongst the ESM, thanks to a reply by the Finance Minister reported in the Economic Times of 05 May 2015, “Tax exemptions and incentives to corporates have resulted in a revenue impact of Rs 62,398.6 crore to the exchequer in 2014-15, 8 per cent higher than the previous fiscal, Parliament was informed today. In a written reply to a question in the Rajya Sabha, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley said the details of revenue impact on central taxes due to various concessions and exemptions have been detailed in the Budget document for 2015-16” but the same Minister is baulking at giving Rs 8300 crores as estimated by the Defence Minister for OROP.      

         
 The PM’s admonition to the media not to keep up a running commentary must be seen in the light of the fact of the past week’s blitzkrieg by BJP led NDA Govt’s statements on transparency, accountability, etc. Neither the PM nor the Finance Minister or the Defence Minister have conveyed to the ESM what the fresh complexities are though the Koshiyari Committee has examined the issues and spelt them all out. And the Defence Minister, who is an honourable man, would not have stated that he has placed the file with Finance Ministry, if he had not resolved all issues, even the 80% as he was misquoted.

          If indeed the ‘Man ki Baat’ (quoted in almost all the newspapers and available on the PTI website) and the earlier interview with Raj Chengappa of The Tribune conveyed anything it was disbelief that there is dissonance within the Govt on the OROP as witnessed by the following: -

The Defence Minister meets personages of ESM organisations regularly after assuming office and tells them that all home work has been done and the OROP file sent to Finance Ministry.     

The Finance Minister states something else which makes readers/listeners of news wonder if the Defence Minister is confused or worse.

Now the PM steps in and says there are complexities that need time to resolve for “make all happy” solution. He also further dampens the hopes of the ESM by stating that he has four more years in Government.

Does that mean that BJP led NDA Govt will emulate the UPA’s dying swan act just in the interim Budget of February 2019, before the Election Commission announces the next General Elections in 2019? Just like it is alleged in the media that BJP is just carrying on with UPA’s schemes (as stated by Shri Arun Jaitley) in his replies.

  

In closing, let us all, ESM and the BJP led NDA Government and its personages remember what Jean Paul Sartre said, “Commitment is an act, not just a word.”

Servicemen have laid their lives on the line in the firm belief that the Government will look after them in old age or look after their families after they have sacrificed their lives for the Nation. If after making repeated promises/commitments of implementing OROP, the Govt finds it does not have the funds, then it could announce that OROP will be implemented 12 or 24 or 44 months (as the Model Code will kick in thereafter) from now and, Most important, Mr Prime Minister orders his ministers not to talk about OROP till BJP Govt issues the orders.

Episode VII - OROP: A summing up as per an IPS retd Lawyer

Dr. Ashok Dhamija

Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate, author of law books and an ex-IPS officer having also worked in CBI. Read more by clicking here. Email: ashok@dhamija.com Twitter: https://twitter.com/ashokdhamija

*          *          *          *          *

About 25 lakh retired military personnel have been demanding “One Rank, One Pension” (OROP) for a long period. It has not been implemented by the Central Government so far, even though the Government has already accepted it in principle and there are judgments of the Supreme Court laying down that discrimination in the matter of grant of pension on the basis of the date of retirement is not permissible as it is violative of the fundamental right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. In fact, recently, I have also won a case against discrimination in the grant of pension to similarly situated retired IPS officers who retired prior to 2006 vis-a-vis those who retired on or after 01.01.2006, which means that this principle would be applicable to civil services also; but, more on this slightly later. Let me first explain what “One Rank, One Pension” is, why it is the mandate of law, and also why it must be implemented by the Government forthwith.

“One Rank, One Pension” rule basically implies that retired soldiers of the same rank with the same length of service will be entitled to get the same amount of pension, irrespective of the date or year of their retirement. Simply put, it means if someone has retired from the Army from a particular rank having rendered a particular number of years’ service, then he will get the same pension that is paid to another person who subsequently retires from the same rank with the same number of years’ service. For example, if a sepoy (i.e., jawan or sipahi) retired in 1990 after rendering service for 15 years, he must get the same pension as is given to a sepoy retiring in 2014 after rendering the same service for 15 years.

In fact, it is really surprising and shocking as to how different retired persons, who retired from the same position or rank after having rendered the same number of years’ service but retiring at different times, are paid different and unequal pension amounts. Why this inequality, in spite of the right to equality guaranteed under the Constitution?

Such inequality in pension has been the result of the recommendations of various pay commissions which gave higher increase in salaries to the serving personnel (who will then get higher pension after their retirement), while the pension of the existing retired pensioners was not increased appropriately in the same ratio. Thus, over a period of time, there is a vast difference between the pensions of retired personnel retiring at different times even though they might have retired from the same position and with the same number of years’ service.

For example, the media reports suggest that a sepoy who retired before 1996 gets 82% less pension than a sepoy who retired after 01.01.2006, and a major who retired before 1996 gets 53% less pension than a major who retired after 01.01.2006. This is ridiculous and a clear violation of the right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution.

It is pertinent to point out that in the case of Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar, (1971) 2 SCC 330 (at page 344), a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court has held that “pension is not a bounty payable on the sweet will and pleasure of the Government and that, on the other hand, the right to pension is a valuable right vesting in a government servant”.

Likewise, in the case of D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 (at page 323) : AIR 1983 SC 130, it was held by another Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court that the antiquated notion of pension being a bounty, a gratuitous payment depending upon the sweet will or grace of the employer not claimable as a right and, therefore, no right to pension can be enforced through Court has been swept under the carpet by the decision of the Constitution Bench in the aforesaid Deokinandan Prasad case wherein it was authoritatively ruled that pension is a right and the payment of it does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the rules and a government servant coming within those rules is entitled to claim pension.

It was further held in the above case of D.S. Nakara that the pension payable to a government employee is earned by rendering long and efficient service and therefore can be said to be a deferred portion of the compensation or for service rendered.

In the above case of D.S. Nakara, it has also been held by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court that all pensioners have equal right to receive the benefits of a liberalised pension scheme. It was also held that the pensioners form a class as a whole and cannot be micro-classified by an arbitrary, unprincipled and unreasonable eligibility criterion for the purpose of grant of revised pension. Moreover, the criterion of enforcement of the revised pension scheme entitling benefits of the revision to those retiring after a specific date while depriving the benefits to those retiring prior to that date was held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The directions issued by the Supreme Court in the recent case of Union of India v. SPS Vains, (2008) 9 SCC 125, are also quite relevant in this regard. In this case, the issue was “…whether there could be a disparity in payment of pension to officers of the same rank, who had retired prior to the introduction of the revised pay scales, with those who retired thereafter”. The dispute arose due to disparity in determination of pension of pre 01.01.1996 and post 01.01.1996 retirees who retired from defence services as Major General or equivalent posts. The pension of the pre 01.01.1996 retiree Major Generals was fixed lower than the post 01.01.1996 retiree Major Generals due to revision in pay scales.

The Supreme Court held as under:

“The object sought to be achieved was not to create a class within a class, but to ensure that the benefits of pension were made available to all persons of the same class equally. To hold otherwise would cause violence to the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution.”

In the above SPS Vains case, the Supreme Court directed that the pay of all pensioners (who retired prior to 01.01.1996) in the rank of Major General be notionally fixed at the rate given to similar officers of the same rank (who retired after 01.01.1996) after revision of pay scales with effect from 01.01.2006, and, thereafter, to compute their pensionary benefits on such basis with prospective effect from the date of filing of the writ petition and to pay them the difference within three months from date with interest at 10% p.a.

Thus, the decision of Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of SPS Vains, clearly lays down that there cannot be a disparity in payment of pension to officers of the same rank, who had retired prior to the introduction of the revised pay scales, with those who retired thereafter.

It is pertinent to mention that recently, on 16 February 2015, when the contempt matter relating to SPS Vains case (along with a Civil Appeal with the title of “Union of India through Defence Secretary & Others vs. SPS Vains & Ors.”) was listed before a 2-judge bench of the Supreme Court, comprising of Justice T.S. Thakur and Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel, the Supreme Court passed the following order:

“Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General, prays for and is granted three months’ time finally to work out the modalities for implementation of the one rank-one pension principle on which the Tribunal has passed the impugned judgment. The principle is also, it appears, covered by the decision of this Court in Union of India & Anr. v. SPS Vains (Retd.) & Ors. – (2008) 9 SCC 125. Post after three months finally. We make it clear that no further time will be granted for the purpose of implementation of the impugned judgment.”

Thus, the Supreme Court has granted a period of 3 months (as on 16th February 2015), as a final chance, to implement the one rank one pension scheme. As per Hindustan Times, the above bench of the Supreme Court also warned the Government of contempt if it failed to abide by its order within three months, and further, Justice Thakur is reported to have told the ASG representing the Government that this (i.e., one rank one pension) was part of the BJP manifesto for the Lok Sabha elections and it must keep its word.

The Supreme Court website shows that the above Contempt Petition in the SPS Vains case will now be listed on 1st July 2015, i.e., immediately after the summer vacation in the Supreme Court. Though the above 3 months’ period expired on 15th May 2015, due to summer vacation in the Supreme Court, the Government can enjoy a further grace period of 6 weeks during the summer vacation. It is hoped that by that time the Government will comply with the direction of implementing the one rank one pension scheme.

What about the pensioners from the Civil Services?

As mentioned in the beginning of this article, I may point out that I have won in a recent case [Forum of Retired IPS Officers (FORIPSO) vs. Union of India] which has been decided on 15 January 2015 by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) at New Delhi on a principle similar to the principle of one rank one pension rule. In this case, the issue was the discrimination in the matter of pension given to the retired IPS officers of Director General (DG) rank who had retired prior to 2006 vis-à-vis retired officers of the same rank who retired on or after 01.01.2006. Relying upon the decisions in the aforesaid D.S. Nakara and SPS Vains cases [and also on the decision of CAT in the case of  All India S-30 Pensioners’ Association v. Union of India decided on 20.11.2014], the CAT has directed the Government of India to consider the revised pay of the applicants (i.e., pre-2006 retired IPS officers DG rank) corresponding to the pay at which the concerned pensioners had in fact retired instead of considering the minimum of the said pay scales thereby determining pension/family pension to pre-2006 retirees. This direction ensures that the increments earned by a pre-2006 retired officer will be fixed at the appropriate stage of the new pay scale after 2006 revision, taking into account the increments earned by such pre-2006 retiree in the old pay scale, and then computing his revised pension accordingly. This direction will thus ensure that a pre-2006 officer will get the same pension as that paid to a post-2006 retiree who retired from the same stage of the pay scale. This is more or less the same as the one rank one pension rule.

In fact, in the aforesaid decision in the case of All India S-30 Pensioners’ Association v. Union of India, the CAT had also ruled that [and this decision is also applicable in the case of Forum of Retired IPS Officers (FORIPSO) vs. Union of India that I had argued] the ratio laid down in the judgment of the  Supreme Court in SPS Vains case that there can be no disparity in payment of pension to officers of the same rank, who had retired prior to the introduction of the revised pay scales, with those who retired thereafter, will hold good in the case of civilian officers also. Accordingly, the CAT had held that the OM dated 18.11.2009 of the Government of India (which said that the ruling of SPS Vains case was not applicable to the civil pensioners) was illegal, being contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in SPS Vains and D.S. Nakara cases and the same was, therefore, quashed and set aside.

Therefore, it is clear that the rule of one rank one pension would generally be applicable to civil pensioners also. This is for the simple reason that any contrary rule would violate the fundamental right to equality guaranteed to the pensioners (whether pensioners from the defence services or the civil services) under Article 14 of the Constitution, i.e., the right to receive the same pension when they retire from the same position with the same length of service, irrespective of the date of retirement. This is the essence of “One Rank, One Pension.”

Why should a person who retired in 1970 or 1990 receive less pension than a person retiring in say 2015, when both of them have retired from the same position and with the same length of service? After all, when they go the market and purchase vegetables or grocery items or clothes for themselves or for their families, they have to pay the same amount of money. In fact, a person who retired 20 years back may have to spend more money on health (due to more advanced age) than a person who retired later.

Therefore, the right to equality requires that the Government must forthwith implement the principle of one rank one pension to give justice to tens of lakhs of pensioners from the defence services as well as from the civil services.

*          *          *          *          *