Ex Sub Devi Singh vs UOI & Others on 2 February 2026

O R D E R

02.02.2026

MA No 743/2023

1. The applicant has filed this MA praying for condonation of delay of eight years, eight months and 24 days involved in filing the OA. Taking into considerations the reasons advanced therein, the delay is condoned. MA stands disposed off.

OA No 457/2023

2. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has filed this OA praying for directing the Respondents to step up service pension of the applicant at par with Territorial Army personnel for the same rank with same length of service and the same ground regardless of their date of retirement in the interest of natural justice. He has further prayed for quashing and setting aside the letters or orders to avert in stepping up of service pension wef 01/7/2014 equal to Territorial Army personnel as demanded as per relevant rules/regulations as well as judgment of Hon’ble Tribunal in the interest of natural justice. Further, it has been prayed that any such order as the Hon’ble Tribunal may deem it fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may be passed.

3. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the applicant are that the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 28/1/1966 and was discharged from service on 01/2/1994 on completion of 28 years and four days of qualifying service in Y Group. OROP I was implemented wef 01/7/2014 under which the service pension ofthe applicant has been revised @Rs 12,268/-, whereas the service pension of Subedar having 28 years of service belonging to Territorial Army (TA) personnel has been revised @Rs 12,660/-, as per Table 7, which is more than regular Army for the same rank with same length of service, which is wrong and illegal in the facts and circumstances of the case, as pension of regular Army personnel is always more than TA personnel. The applicant has come to known through reliable sources about the anomaly regarding grant of higher pension to TA personnel than regular army wef 01/12014. The applicant has sent a representation in this regard vide his letter dated 17/7/2023 to all the Respondents for revision of service pension equal to TA personnel wef 01/7/2014, but the same was rejected vide letter dated 05/8/2023. Having been aggrieved, the applicant has filed this OA praying for relief.

4. The Respondents have filed a Reply Statement. While not disputing the basic facts, the Respondents have submitted that the applicant was discharged from service on 31/1/1994 under Rule 13 (3) item III (i) (a) of Army Rules, 1954 on completion of service limit. He had rendered 28 years and four days of service in the Army and was granted service pension for life, which has been revised from time to time. Based on the policy of Govt of India, Ministry of Defence, One Rank One Pension (ORO) Scheme was promulgated by the Govt vide letter dated 03/2/2016, which was implemented by PCDA (P) vide Circular No 555 dated 04/2/2016. However, the applicant has filed this OA praying for revision of his pension for OROP as per Table No 9, which is applicable to TA personnel and not Army personnel, which is not applicable to him as he was not discharged under the terms and conditions of TA. Moreover, Para 5.5 of PCDA (P) Circular No 555 dated 04/2/2016 stipulates that pension of TA personnel who are in receipt of pension for TA service shall be revised based on TA Tables for JCOs/OR, whereas the applicant is in receipt of pension for his regular Army. In view of this, relief sought for by the applicant in his OA is not tenable as there is no provision/policy issued by the Govt of India, Ministry of Defence, to grant service pension in the rank of Risaldar equal to Risaldar discharged from the TA. Hence, the Respondents have prayed that the OA lacks substance and devoid of merit.

5. We have heard the counsels for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

6. It is apparent from the material on record that the applicant was discharged from Armoured Corps of Army service in the rank of a Risaldar wef 31/1/1994 under rule 13 (3) item I (i) (a) of Army Rules 1954. He had rendered 28 years and four days of service and was granted service pension for the qualifying service. The concept of OROP Scheme was formulated after much deliberations at the highest level of the Govt of India and the revision of pension of retired defence personnel on first OROP was implemented with effect from 01/7/2014. We are abreast that the minor anomaly in fixation of pension on implementation of first OROP between the regular army personnel and the TA personnel, wherein it was a bit higher for the TA personnel was set right at a late stage in terms of fixation of pension under OROP Scheme. Since the implementation of OROP Scheme was formulated by the Govt of India which was a considered policy of the Govt under which relevant Tables were made applicable to give effect to OROP, we deem it appropriate not to interfere. Therefore, with the policy matters of Govt of India, the plea of the applicant to equate the service pension with the TA personnel on implementation of First OROP with effect from 01/7/2014 has no merit and is, therefore, rejected.

7. The OA is disposed off accordingly. No order on costs.

8. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed off.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

cda/-