Ex Sub Richpal Singh vs UOI & Others on 13 July 2026

O R D E R

13.07.2026

1. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has prayed for directing the Respondents to re-fix Service Pension of the Applicant @ Rs. 12,660/- pm wef 01.07.2014 and Rs. 32,536/- pm wef 01.01.2016 along with consequential benefits and that the arrears be paid along with interest and suitable compensation.

2. The brief facts of the case as enunciated by the Applicant are that the Applicant was enrolled in the Indian Army on 30.06.1976 and after rendering more than 28 years of service, he was discharged from Service on 30.06.2004 on completion of terms of engagement. The Applicant was granted Service Pension @ Rs. 4660/- pm as per his Group ‘Y’ for life wef 01.07.2004 which was revised to Rs. 12,268/- pm wef 01.07.2014 (as per OROP-1 revision) and on implementation of 7th CPC, his Service Pension was revised to Rs. 31,529/- pm wef 01.01.2016 (12,268x2.57 = Rs. 31,529/-). The Applicant submits that on implementation of OROP, the similarly placed personnel of Territorial Army with same rank and length of service/group, were granted higher Basic Pension @ Rs. 32,536/- pm as per Table No 9 inGovt of India, Ministry of Defence letter No 12(1)/2014/D/Pen/Policy/ Part-II dt 03.02.2016asagainst that of Army personnel @ Rs. 31,529/- pm which is Rs. 1007/- higher than the pension of the Applicant. 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”. As per Chapter-1, Rule 182 of Section-1 of the Territorial Army Rules, 1948, grant of pensionary awards to the Territorial Army Service Personnel are governed by the same General Regulations as are applicable to the corresponding personnel of the Army. As per Govt of India, Ministry of Defence letter dt 07.11.2015, OROP-1 for the ex-servicemen was to be implemented wef 01.07.2014, and the OROP implies that uniform pension be paid to the Defence Forces personnel, retiring in the same rank with the same length of service, regardless of their date of retirement to bridge the gap between the rates of pension of current and past pensioners at periodic intervals. In support of his claim, the Applicant has placed reliance on judgment dt 12.05.2023 of Hon’ble AFT (RB), Chandigarh in OA No 3324/2018 in the case of Bharat Singh Vs UOI & Ors and judgment dt 16.03.2023 in OA No 1829/2018 in the case of Shamsher Singh Vs UOI & Ors. 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 04.02.2016which 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”. As regards aforesaid judgments of AFT (RB), Chandigarh in the cases of Bharat Singh and Shamsher Singh (Supra), the Respondents have submitted that Hon’ble AFT (RB), Chandigarh has been approached for filing Leave to Appeal. In view of the aforesaid averments, the Respondents have reiterated that the OA is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

4. During the course of arguments, Learned Counsel for the Applicant placed on record copies of Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment dt 17.12.2021 in Civil Appeal No 2275/2019 in the case of Pani Ram (Deceased) through LRs Vs UOI & Ors and Hon’ble Armed Forces Tribunal (Regional Bench), Chandigarh at Chandimandir Order dt 28.05.2025 in OA No 36/2014 in the case of Baldev Ram & Anr Vs UOI & Ors and submitted that fixation of Service Pension of Subedars of Army less than their counterparts of Territorial Army with same rank, group and length of service is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and against the Rules and Regulations and the principles of natural justice and prayed that the Respondents may be directed to re-consider his case in the light of aforesaid judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and AFT (RB), Chandigarh.

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

6. 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 in OROP and thereafter on implementation of 7th CPC as also in OROP-II and OROP-III revisions.

7. 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.”

8. 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.”

9. As regardsthe 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.”

10. 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 a single 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 were 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. Interestingly, the Applicant has not objected to the same as the Territorial Army and Army Subedars are granted Service Pension as per different tables wef 01.07.2019 where he will get more than a Subedar with equal length of service who retired from Territorial 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).

11. Further, a case of similar nature in OA No 595/2023 in the case of Ex Risaldar (Sub) Jagroop Singh Vs UOI & Ors has already been dismissed on 09.03.2026 by this Tribunal having discussed thisissue at length. In the case of Ris Jagroop Singh (Supra), it was also settled that the Service Pension of Army Subedar of Group ‘X’ retiring with same length of service was Rs. 13,215/- pm, ie., more than a Subedar of Territorial Army in the Table for Territorial Army personnel. The judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Pani Ram (Supra) is distinguishable and not related to the facts and circumstances of this case as the same was related to grant of Disability Pension for Territorial Army personnel. Further, it is not known whether the directions issued byHon’ble AFT (RB), Chandigarh in the cases of Bharat Singh, Shamsher Singh and Baldev Singh (Supra) have been considered and finalised. Interestingly, these orders only mention that the matter be processed by the Respondents and no Order was passedto equate the Pension of “Y & Z Group” of Army Subedars with that of Subedar of Territorial Army for the period 01.07.2014 to 30.06.2019. Moreover, the Order of AFT (RB), Chandigarh states that the pension of the Applicants be fixed as per their entitlement and there is no specific order to enhance the same to bring it at par with that of Subedars of Territorial Army. Hence, the OA merits dismissal.

12. However, taking note of the prayer of the Applicant for directing the Respondents to reconsider the case of the Applicant in the light of Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Pani Ram (Supra) and AFT (RB), Chandigarh at Chandimander Order in the case of Baldev Ram (Supra), we direct that if the Applicant makes a fresh representation with regard to his prayer in the OA, taking into consideration the aspects brought out in the OA, the Respondents shall consider the same in the light of extant rules/ regulations/ policies within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order and the outcome thereof shall be intimated to the Applicant.

13. The OA is disposed off, accordingly. Pending Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, also stand disposed off.

14. No order on costs.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

Ssy/-