Ex Sub Om Prakash vs UOI & Others on 12 November 2025

ORDER

12,11.2025 Respondents : Mr Budh Ram/Dhura Ram, Advocates :Mr Brij Bihari Sharma, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, MEMBER () HON'BLE MR. SANJIV MITTAL, MEMBER (A)

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 01.11.2017 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 01.11.2017 egqual to Territorial Army Personnel as demanded as per relevant rules/regulations as well as judgment of Hon ble Tribunalin 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. Brief facts of the case are that the Applicant was enrolled in the Army on 12.10.1989 and after rendering 28 years and 20 days of qualifying service, he was discharged from Service on 31.10.2017 in the rank of Subedar (Group Y), OA No 81/2024 Ex Sub Omn Prakash Vs UOI & Ors for which he has been granted Service Pension @ Rs. 27, 100/- pm wef 01.11.2017 vide PPO No 151201700170 (suffix 0100), which stands revised to Rs. 31,000/- pm wef 01.07.2019 on implementation of OROP-[I. 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 28 years qualifying service has been fixed at Rs. 12,268/- pm wef 01.07.2014 (Table-7), whereas the Service Pension of Subedar of Territorial Army with 28 years qualifying service has been fixed to Rs. 12,660/- pm (Table 9). Consequently, on implementation of 7ih CPC, Service Pension of Subedar (Group Y of Army and Territorial Army with 28 years of qualifying service has been revised to Rs. 31,539/- pm and Rs. 32,537/- respectively wef 01.01.2016 by applying multiplication factor of 2.57 in the existing pension as on 31.12.2015. The Applicant was discharged from service on 31.10.2017, ie., after implementation 7th CPC wef 01.01.2016, however, his service pension has been fixed @ 27,100/- pm which is much lesser than then personnel discharged on or before 01.01.2016. Further, on revision of OROP-II, his pension has been revised to Rs. 31,000/- pm. 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 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.

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 (PCDA (P) Circular No 555 dt 04.02.2016) are not applicable to him. Further, OA No 8I/2024 Ex Sub Om Prakash Vs UOI & Ors Table-7 of PCDA (P) Cirular No 555 dt 04.02.2016 is applicable to Army, Navy and Air Force personnel, whereas the Applicant is seeking 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 recejpt 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.

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: - 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.

(i) 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 samne rank and with the same length of service.

(ii)

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

(i) Arrears will be paid in four equal half yearly instalments. However, all the family pensioners including those in receipt of Special/Liberalized Famiy pension and Gallantry award winners shall be paid arrears in one instalment. 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. 7he 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 aualifying service of a rank are lower than rates of lower qualifying service in same rank or data ifare blank for higher qualifying service then the same have been protected by higher rate of lower qualifing 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 resu/ting Silmilar 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 isadvantage of the pensioner/family pensioner. 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 princjples 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: () 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;

(i) 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 draNn in 2013 is used. Since the uniform application of the last drawn salary for the purpose of calculating pension Would put the pror 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 Govern1ment had a range of policy choices incuding taking the minimum, the maximum or the mean or average. The Union gOvernment decided to adopt the average. Persons below the average were brought yp to the average mark while those drawing above the average were protected. Sucha decision lies within the ambit of policy choices; () 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 retiing before and after 1 July 2014 either due to MACP or the different base salary used for the calculatiorn of pension cannot be held arbitrary; and (n) Since the OROP definition is not arbitrary, it is not necessary for us to undertake the exercise of determining ií the financial implications of the scheme 0s negligible or enormous.

On perusal of Table 7 (applicable to Armny/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 which, 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". 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 particular 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 Army for the same length of service and Group has been fixed @ Rs. 29,700/- pm which implies that he was already in receipt of Service Pension more than the minimum pension fixed as on 01.07.2019 and his higher rate of pension has been protected. 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

9. OA No 81/2024 Ex Sub Om Prakash Vs UOr& Ors 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). Moreover, since the Applicant is not entitled to the benefit of OROP-I, he has no locus standi to even claim parity with those who got their pension re-fixed wef 01.07.2014 as the Applicant was in service at that point of time and was drawing full pay and allowances for his rank and group, and based on his last pay drawn, his pension was fixed wef 01.11.2017, which has later been revised as per provisions/tables under OROP-II wef 01.07.2019 which must have further been revised wef 01.07.2024 with the implementation of OROP-III.

10. 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.

11. No order on costs.

(SANJIV MII TAL) MEMBER (A) Ssy/ (GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (J)