Ex Subedar Jagroop Singh vs UOI & Others on 9 March 2026

O R D E R

09.03.2026

1. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has prayed for directing the Respondents to step up Service Pension of the Applicant wef 01.07.2014 equal to Territorial Army personnel for the same rank with same length of service and same grounds regardless of their date of retirement.

2. The brief facts of the case as enunciated by the Applicant are that the Applicant was enrolled in the Indian Army on 05.11.1977 and after rendering more than 28 years of service, he was discharged from Service on 30.11.2005 on completion of terms of engagement in Group “Y” and, accordingly, he was granted Service Pension for life wef 01.12.2005, which was revised to Rs. 12,268/- pm on implementation ofOPRO-1 wef 01.07.2014 (Table No-7 of Govt of India, Ministry of Defence letter dt 07.11.2015). However, the similarly placed personnel of Territorial Army with same rank and length of service/group, are granted higher Basic Pension @ Rs. 12,660/- pm as per Table No 9. The Applicant has contested that grant of lower pension to the Applicant than his counterparts of Territorial Army is unreasonable, arbitrary, unconstitutional and equity and against the principles of “Equal Pay for Equal Work”. Moreover, in terms of Regulation 184 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008 (Part-1), TA personnel are not allowed to grant service weightage. After taking into account weightage of five years, the total service of the Applicant comes to 33 years as against 28 years of Service of TA personnel. The Applicant made representations for stepping up of his pension at par with Territorial Army personnel but to no avail. Therefore, the aggrieved Applicant has filed present OA.

3. The Respondents have filed a detailed reply. While not disputing the basic facts presented by the Applicant, the Respondents have submitted that the Applicant’s pension has rightly been revised in terms of Table-7 of PCDA (P) Circular No 555 dt 04.02.2016 which is applicable to Army, Navy and Air Force personnel, whereas the Applicant is seeking for grant of Service Pension as per Table No-9 of Circular No 555, which is applicable for Territorial Army personnel. Para 5.5 of PCDA (P) Circular No 555 clearly states that “pension of TA personnel who are in receipt of pension for TA service shall be revised based on Territorial Army tables for JCOs/OR”. In view of the aforesaid averments, the Respondents have reiterated that the OA is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

4. We have heard Learned Counsels for both the parties and perused the material placed before us.

5. It is not in dispute that the Army/Navy/Air Force and the Territorial Army are two different services which are governed by different set of rules and regulations and, accordingly, their rates of pension have also been placed in different tables upon revision.

6. The salient features of OROP policy are given in Para 3 of Govt of India, Ministry of Defence, Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare letter No 12(1)/2014/D(Pen/Pol)-Part-II dt 07.11.2015, which reads as under:- “(i) To begin with, pension of the past pensioners would be re-fixed on the basis of pension of retirees of calendar year 2013 and the benefit will be effective with effect from 1.7.2014.

(ii) Pension will be re-fixed for all pensioners on the basis of the average of minimum and maximum pension of personnel retired in 2013 in the same rank and with the same length of service.

(iii) Pension for those drawing above the average shall be protected.

(iv) Arrears will be paid in four equal half yearly instalments. However, all the family pensioners including those in receipt of Special/Liberalized Family pension and Gallantry award winners shall be paid arrears in one instalment.

(v) In future, the pension would be re-fixed every 5 years.”

7. Further, relevant paragraphs of Govt of India, Ministry of Defence letter No 1(1)/2019/D(Pen/Pol)/Vol-II dt 20.01.2019, for methodology of fixation of pension in OROP-II read as under:- “4.3. The revised rates of pension under this letter are average of minimum & maximum rate of pension for a rank and a qualified service of live data of 2018 retirees. Wherever, the rates of higher qualifying service of a rank are lower than rates of lower qualifying service in same rank or data is/are blank for higher qualifying service then the same have been protected by higher rate of lower qualifying service, due to this, many rates in same column appears equal. Similarly, wherever the revised rate of pension under this order are lower in higher rank than rate in lower rank in same qualifying service then the same have been protected with higher rates of pension in lower rank in same qualifying service resulting similar rate in some qualifying service in two adjacent columns.

5. Where the revised pension as on 01.07.2019 worked out in terms of this letter, happens to be less than the existing pension/family pension as on 01.07.2019, the pension shall not be revised to the disadvantage of the pensioner/family pensioner.”

8. As regard to arbitrariness of the OROP Policy, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment dt 16.03.2022 in WP (C) No 419/2016 the case of Indian Ex-Servicemen Movement and Ors Vs UOI & Ors, held as under:- “49. Applying the above principles to the facts of the case, we find no constitutional infirmity in the OROP principle as defined by the communication dated 7 November 2015 for the following reasons:

(i) The definition of OROP is uniformly applicable to all the pensioners irrespective of the date of retirement. It is not the case of the petitioners that the pension is reviewed ‘automatically’ to a class of the pensioners and ‘periodically’ to another class of the pensioners;

(ii) The cut-off date is used only for the purpose of determining the base salary for the calculation of pension. While for those who retired after 2014, the last drawn salary is used to calculate pension, for those who retired prior to 2013, the average salary drawn in 2013 is used. Since the uniform application of the last drawn salary for the purpose of calculating pension would put the prior retirees at a disadvantage, the Union Government has taken a policy decision to enhance the base salary for the calculation of pension. Undoubtedly, the Union Government had a range of policy choices including taking the minimum, the maximum or the mean or average. The Union government decided to adopt the average. Persons below the average were brought up to the average mark while those drawing above the average were protected. Such a decision lies within the ambit of policy choices;

(iii) While no legal or constitutional mandate of OROP can be read into the decisions in Nakara (supra) and SPS Vains (supra), varying pension payable to officers of the same rank retiring before and after 1 July 2014 either due to MACP or the different base salary used for the calculation of pension cannot be held arbitrary; and

(iv) Since the OROP definition is not arbitrary, it is not necessary for us to undertake the exercise of determining if the financial implications of the scheme is negligible or enormous.”

9. On perusal of Table 7 (applicable to Army/Navy/Air Force pensioners) and 9 (applicable to Territorial Army pensioners) of PCDA (P) Circular No 555 dt 04.02.2016, it is evident that the Service Pension of Subedar of Army with 28 years of qualifying service has been revised to Rs. 13,215/- and Rs. 12,268/- respectively for Group “X” and “Y/Z” respectively, whereas the Service Pension of Subedar of Territorial Army with same length of service has been fixed at Rs. 12,660/- pm. The main distinction is that the rates of Service Pension for Army pensioners has been placed in two groups, ie., Group “X” and Group “Y/Z”, whereas in the case of Territorial Army pensioners it has been fixed at flat rate of Rs. 12,660/- pm with no group classification of “X” and “Y/Z”. Though, Service Pension of Territorial Army pensioners is more (Rs. 12,660/- pm) than the Army pensioners (Rs. 12,268/- pm) who are placed in Group “Y/Z”, but at the same time, it is less than the Army pensioners who are placed in Group “X”, ie., Rs. 13,215/- pm, which the Applicant has not brought out in the OA. Further, on implementation of OROP-II, the service pension of Army and Territorial pensioners have been placed at Table No 7 and 10 respectively, and according to that, the service pension of Subedar of Army with 28 years of qualifying service has been revised to Rs. 35,500/- pm and 29,700/- pm for Group “X” and “Y/Z” respectively as against the Subedar of Territorial Army to Rs. 28,650/- pm which is less than the Subedar of both Group “X” and “Y/Z” of Indian Army. Further, Army and Territorial Army are two different services which are governed by different sets of rules and regulations and, accordingly, their rates of pension have also been mentioned in different tables upon revision under OROP or even otherwise. Moreover, this being a policy matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the policy in the light of Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Indian Ex-Servicemen Movement(Supra).

10. In-fine, we find that the OA is bereft of merit on all counts and, hence, is dismissed. Pending Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, also stand disposed off.

11. No order on costs.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

Ssy/-