The top court had said that whatever decision it will take will be on ideological basis and not on statistics.
The Supreme Court is likely to pronounce its verdict on Wednesday on a plea by the Ex-Servicemen Association that sought to implement one rank-one pension with an automatic annual revision instead of the current policy of one-time periodic review recommended by the Bhagat Singh Koshyari committee. Has been. in five years. A bench headed by Justice DY Chandrachud had on February 23 reserved its verdict and asked the Center whether the hardships of ex-servicemen could be mitigated to some extent by reducing the periodic revision of OROP to five years.
The Indian Ex-Servicemen Movement (IESM), through advocate Balaji Srinivasan, has filed a petition against the Centre’s OROP formula. The top court had said that whatever decision it will take will be on ideological basis and not on statistics. It said, “When you amend after five years, the arrears of five years are not taken into account. The hardships of ex-servicemen can be mitigated to some extent if the period is reduced to less than five years.” be done.
The Center has said that when revision takes place after five years, the maximum last drawn salary which has all the factors is taken into account along with the lowest in the bracket and this is being given the golden mean. “When we made the policy, we did not want anyone to be left behind after independence. Equalized. We covered the entire last 60-70 years. Now, to amend it through the direction of the court, the implications are not known to us. Anything with finance and economics has to be carefully considered. The period of five years is reasonable and also has financial implications”, it had said.
Senior advocates Huzefa Ahmadi and Srinivasan, appearing for IESM, had said that the court has to note that it pertains to the old soldiers who fought man to man unlike the soldiers of today’s times, who have sophisticated weapons. “Old soldiers need OROP the most. If we accept the Centre’s contention, it would amount to allowing the illegality to continue, which the court wants to root out”, Ahmadi said.
The Center had said on February 21 that the statement on the in-principle approval of OROP for defense services was made by the then Finance Minister P Chidambaram during his interim budget speech on February 17, 2014, without the recommendation of the then Union Cabinet. “Respondent respectfully submits that this statement (of the then Finance Minister dated 17th February, 2014) is not based on any decision or recommendation of the then Union Cabinet. Approved by the Prime Minister in terms of Rule 12 of 1961, the affidavit said.
Clarification by the Center The government was asked by the apex court to clarify whether the statement made by the then finance minister on February 17, 2014, was based on any decision or recommendation of the Union Cabinet.
On February 16, the apex court had said that the Centre’s exaggeration on the OROP policy presented a much more “pink picture” to the pensioners of the armed forces than it was actually given. The apex court had issued notice on July 11, 2016 on a petition filed by IEMS through advocate Balaji Srinivasan, seeking implementation of OROP with automatic annual revision instead of the current policy of periodic review once in five years by the Koshyari committee. Went. ,
Read also | Supreme Court seeks Centre’s stand on ‘one rank, one pension’, asks if it goes back to automatic enhancement
Read also | Karnataka High Court’s decision on hijab ban challenged in Supreme Court