Ex Sub Ishwar Singh vs UOI & Others on 12 November 2025

O R D E R

12.11.2025

1. The above Original Application has been filed by the Applicant under the provisions of Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, praying for the following reliefs:- (a) To direct the Respondents to step up service pension wef 01.11.2015 of the Applicant equal to Territorial Army personnel for the same rank with same length of service and same group regardless their date of retirement in interest of natural justice.

(b) The Hon’ble Tribunal may quash any letters or orders to avert in stepping up service pension wef 01.11.2015 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.

(c) The Hon’ble Tribunal may pass any such other and further order or orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the Applicant was enrolled in the Army on 07.10.1985 and after rendering 30 years and 25 days of qualifying service, he was discharged from Service on 31.10.2015 in the rank of Subedar (Group Y), for which he has been granted Service Pension @ Rs. 5985/- pm wef

01.11.2015 vide PPO No S/34398/2015 (Army), which further stands revised to Rs. 11,970/- pm wef 01.11.2015. The Govt of India, Ministry of Defence vide letter No 12(1)/2014/D (Pen/Pol)- Part II dt 07.11.2015 has implemented “One Rank One Pension” (OROP) for Armed Forces personnel wef 01.07.2014 which implies that uniform pension be paid to the Armed Forces personnel retiring in the same rank with same length of service regardless of their date of retirement. However, Service Pension of Subedar of Army (Group ‘Y’) with 30 years qualifying service has been fixed to Rs. 12,690/- pm wef 01.07.2014 (Table-7), whereas the Service Pension of Subedar of Territorial Army with 30 years qualifying service has been fixed to Rs. 12,660/- pm (Table 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”. 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 18.05.2023 in OA No 1303/2021 in the case of Hoshiar 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 is a post 01.07.2014 retiree, therefore, the provisions of OROP-I implemented wef 01.07.2014 (PCDA (P) Circular No 555 dt 04.02.2016) are not applicable to him. Further, Table-7 of PCDA (P) Circular No 555 dt 04.02.2016 is applicable to Army, Navy and Air Force personnel, whereas the Applicant is seeking for revision 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”. Thereafter, on implementation of 7th CPC, the Applicant’s pension has been revised to Rs. 30,763/- pm wef 01.01.2016 which has further been revised to Rs. 31,000/- pm wef 01.07.2019 on implementation of OROP-II. 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 sets 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 30 years of qualifying service has been revised to Rs. 13,643/- and Rs. 12,690/- 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 to Rs. 12,660/- pm, which is higher than that of the Subedars of Territorial Army. Further, on implementation of OROP-II, the service pension of Army and Territorial Army pensioners have been placed at Table No 7 and 10 respectively, and according to which, the service pension of Subedar of Army with 30 years of qualifying service has been revised to Rs. 35,500/- pm and 31,000/- pm for Group “X” and “Y/Z” respectively as against the Subedar of Territorial Army to Rs. 28,650/- pm which is also less than the Subedar of

both Group “X” and “Y/Z” of the Army. On perusal of the tables of OROP-I and OROP-II, it is clear that the rates of pension under OROP have been revised based on the average of pension for the year 2013 and 2018 for OROP-I and OROP-II respectively for a rank and the qualifying service. Further, the Applicant himself has conceded that on implementation of OROP-II, his service pension has been revised to Rs. 31,000/- pm wef 01.07.2019, whereas as per Table No 10 of PCDA (P) Circular No 666 dt 20.01.2023, the Service Pension of Subedar of Territorial Army for the same length of service and Group has been fixed @ Rs. 28,650/- pm only. Thus, it is clear that since the implementation of OROP-II wef 01.07.2019, the Applicant, ie., a Subedar retired from Indian Army is getting higher pension than that of Territorial Army.

10. From the above, it is crystal clear that the provisions of OROP-I are not applicable to the Applicant as he was a post 01.07.2014 retiree. Hence, he cannot claim the benefit of OROP-I as he was in service as on 01.07.2014 and drawing full pay and allowances of a Subedar in his rank. Further, on implementation of OROP-II wef 01.07.2019, the pension of the Applicant has been revised to Rs. 31,000/- pm wef 01.07.2019 which is more than the Subedar of Territorial Army with same length of service and Group @ Rs. 28,650/- pm only. Further, Army and Territorial Army are two are 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 based on the average of minimum and maximum as on a specific date.

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

12. No order on costs.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

Ssy/-