INDIAN EX SERVICEMEN MOVEMENT & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

INDIAN EX SERVICEMEN MOVEMENT & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

The communication dated 7 November 2015 implementing OROP is not constitutionally infirm. The definition is uniformly applicable; the use of a 2013 average as the base for pre-2014 retirees and protection of those above the average are policy choices justified by legitimate administrative and financial...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Petitioner: Indian Ex Servicemen Movement & Ors.; Respondent: Union of India & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
16 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (civil) / Disposed by Supreme Court (final Judgment)
Outcome
Writ petition disposed of by the Supreme Court; petition not sustained on grounds urged
Legal Topics
One Rank One Pension, OROP Implementation Modalities, Legitimate Expectation, Policy Judicial Review, Article 14 Challenges, Article 32 Petition
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Service Law Pension Law Armed Forces One Rank One Pension OROP Implementation Modalities Legitimate Expectation +3 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Indian Ex Servicemen Movement & Ors.

Petitioner

Union of India & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (civil) / Disposed by Supreme Court (final Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Union Government’s communication dated 7 November 2015 implementing OROP is arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 and 21
  2. 2 Whether the change from an asserted ‘automatic’ revision to periodic (five yearly) revision infringes legitimate expectations or equality
  3. 3 Whether differences in pension outcomes attributable to MACP/ACP or use of 2013 average base violate Article 14

Ratio Decidendi

The communication dated 7 November 2015 implementing OROP is not constitutionally infirm. The definition is uniformly applicable; the use of a 2013 average as the base for pre-2014 retirees and protection of those above the average are policy choices justified by legitimate administrative and financial considerations; differences arising from MACP/ACP or different base salaries do not render the scheme arbitrary under Article 14. Courts will not substitute adjudication for such policy decisions absent manifest arbitrariness. The Court ordered a re-fixation exercise from 1 July 2019 and payment of arrears within three months.

Court Disposition

Writ petition disposed of by the Supreme Court; petition not sustained on grounds urged

Orders

  • A re-fixation exercise shall be carried out from 1 July 2019 in terms of the communication dated 7 November 2015
  • Arrears payable to all eligible pensioners of the armed forces shall be computed and paid within a period of three months