Ex Hav (ACP-I) Ran Singh vs UOI & Others on 6 November 2025

ORDER

06.11.2025

1. The abóve 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 of the Applicant to Rs. 26,741/- (10, 405x2.57) wef O1.01.2021 or as deemed appropriate to remove anomaly instead of RS. 25,050/- granted to Havildar ACP-1 (Naib Subedar Grade), Group 'Y for26 years service in the interestof naturaljustice.

(b) The Hon ble Tribunal_may quash any letters or orders to avert in stepping up the service pension of the Applicant wef O1.01.2021 in the interest of natural justice. () 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 28.12.1994 and after rendering more than 26 years of service, he was discharged from Service on 31.12.2020 in the rank of Havildar (ACP-1) (Group

), for which he has been granted Service Pension @ Rs. 25,050/- pm wef 01.01.2021 vide PPO No 157202008035 suffix 0101. 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, thereby bridging the gap between the rates of pension of the current and the past pensioners at periodical intervals. However, the PCDA (P) has changed the definition itself stating that "who were/are in receipt of retiring pension/service pension/ service element of disability pension, invalid pension as on 01.07.2014". The Applicant submits that the word pre 01.07.2014 used by the PCDA (P) is ultra vires in the policy of the Respondents for non-granting the pension to the Applicant, ie., equal to same rank with same length of service as per principles of OROP as envisaged in MoD letter No 12(1)/2014/D(Pen/Pol) Part-II dt 07.11.2015. Govt of India, Ministry of Defence vide their letter No 17(1)/2016 D(Pen/Pol) dt 29.10.2016 under the 7tin CPC, existing pensioners who have pension/died before 01.01.2016, the revised pension/family pension wef 01.01.2016 shall. be determined by multiplying the basic pension before commutation as had been drawn as on 31.12.2015 by 2.57 to arrive at the revised pension. Hence, the pension of pre-2016 (ie. Retired before 01.07.2014) is Rs. 26,741/- for 26 years qualifying service (Group ) under 3rd MACP (Nb Sub Grade),whereas the Applicant has been granted Service Pension @ Rs. 25,050/-, which has created anomaly in the instant case. Further, Govt of India, Ministry of Defence has put no bar to issue suo-moto Corrigendum PPOs notionally pay fixation as done in 6th CPC to remove the anomaly in pension of pre-2006 and post-2006 vide MoD letter No 14(4)/08/(2) (Pen/Policy) dt 18.08.2010 as circulated vide PCDA (P) Ci8rcular No 471 dt 30.09.2011. Further, on implementation of 7th CPC wef 01.01.20 16, the pay and pension has to be revised/determined by applying the formula of fitment factor, ie., multiplication factor of 2.57 with existing pay/pension and pay matrix system as on 31.12.2015 in terms of PCDA (P) Circular No 570 dt 31.10.2016. The Applicant further submits that notional pay should be taken into account for all post-2006 retirees wef 01.01.2006 and after grant of regular annual increments, the pay should be calculated after application of multiplication factor 2.57 in the existing pay as on 31.12.2015. The Applicant has placed reliance on Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of DS Nakara & Ors Vs UOL, (1983) 1 SCC 305 and submitted that all the pensioners form one class and, hence, the distinction between the retirees of pre and post of a specific date is arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory and has to be set aside. The Applicant has further submitted that the Havildars of the Territorial Army personnel are drawing higher pension rates @ Rs. 22,425/- pm as against the Havildars of Reqular Army who are granted Service Pension @ Rs. 22,257/-.

3. Based on the directions of this Tribunal Order dt 04.01.2024 in OA No 69/2022, the Applicant had submitted representation for removal of anomaly and stepping up of Service Pension to Rs. 26,741/- pm on the following grounds, however, the same was rejected vide impugned Order dated 08.03.2024, therefore, the aggrieved Applicant has filed present OA :

(a) Havildar gd MACP (Nb Sub Grade), Group ', 26 years qualifiying service, pre-2014 retiree is drawing higher pension than the Applicant (26741-25050 = Rs. 1691/ pm).

(b) Havilldar gd MACP (Nb Sub Grade), Group 'Y, 26 years qualifying service, retired between July 2014 to Dec 2015 is drawing higher pension than the Applicant (26755-25050 = Rs. 725/- pm). () Havildar gd MACP (Nb Sub Grade), Group 'Y, 26 years qualifying service, retired between an 2016 to July 2019 is drawing higher pension than the Applicant (26075-25050 = Rs. pm). () Honorary Naib Subedar X, 26 years qualifying sevice, pre July 2014 retiree is drawing higher pension than the Applicant wef 01.01.2016 (28797-25050 = Rs, 3748/- pm).

(e) RIRs Honorary Naib Subedar, Group 'X, 26 years qualifying service, retired from July 2014 to Dec 2015 is drawing less pension than the Applicant and thus no anomaly (24O84-25050 = Rs. 966/- pm).

Honorary Naib Subedar, Group X, 26 years qualifying service, retired from Jan 2016 to July 2019 under OROP-2 is drawing higher pension than the Applicant (26260-25050= Rs. 1210/- pm).

The Respondents have filed a detailed Reply Statement. While not contesting the basic facts presented by the Applicant, the Respondents have submitted that after rendering more than 26 years of qualifying service in Group Y, the Applicant was discharged from Service on 31.12.2020 in the rank of Havildar (ACP-1) and his pension was fixed based on the last pay drawn by him and his Service Pension has correctly been fixed @Rs. 25,050/- pm wef 01.01.2021. On completion of 24 years of service, the Applicant was granted MACP-III benefits wef 28. 12.2018 and the same was adjusted in monthly pay slip for the month of Feb 2019.The Govt of India, Ministry of Defence had released OROP scheme to theDefence Forces personnel and the rates of revised pension had been annexed as per separate table for separate class vide their letter No 12(1)/2014/D(Pen/Policy)-Part-II dt 03.02.2016. The provisions of ibid policy are applicable to all pensioners/family pensioners who had been retired/ discharged/ invalided-out from Service/died in service or after retirement in the rank of commissioned officers, honorary commissioned officers, JCOs/OR and Non-Combatants (Enrolled) of Army, Navy, Air Force, Defence Security Corps, Territorial Armý and Ex-State Forces and are in receipt of pension/familý, pension as on 01.07.2014: Based on the ibid policy, PCDA (P) Allahabad had issued a Circular No 555 dt 04,02.2016 and as per Para 5.1 of the ibid Circular, "these orders apply to the al pensioners/family pensioners who had retired/discharged/invalided out from service/ died in service or after retirement in the rank of commissioned officers, JCOs/OR and Non-Combatants (Enrolled), Army Navy, Air Force, Defence Se urity Corps, Territorial Army and who were/are in recejpt of Retiring Pension/Service Pension/ Service Element Of Disability Pension/ Service Element of War Injury Pension/Invalid Pension as on 01.07.2014. The OROP Scheme is applicable to those pensioners who had retired/ discharged/'invalided out from service/ died in service or after retirement were in receipt of the specified kind of pension as on 01.07.2014. Since, the Applicant was discharged from Service on 31.12.2020, he is not entitled for OROP benefits. On implementation of OROP-IL, pension of pensioners has been revised vide PCDA (P) Circular No 666 dt 20.01.2023 wef 01.07.2019, which is also not applicable to the Applicant, as he was discharged from Service on 31.12.2020, ie., after implementation of OROP-II Scheme wef 01.07.2019. Further, both the 6th and 7th CPC were implemented during the OA No 21I/2024 Ex Hav (ACP1) Ran Singh Vs UOI & Ors

service time of the Applicant and he was qranted service benefits accordingly. In the present matter, anomaly in pay fixation, if any, is not pension related matter and, hence, needs no comments. Moreover, the representation of the Applicant for stepping up of pension has been rejected by PCDA (P), Prayagraj vide Order dt 08.03.2024. In view of the aforesaid averments, the Respondents have reiterated that the OA is devoid of merit and hence deserves to be dismissed.

5. Heard and considered the submissions of Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

It is not in dispute that the Applicant was discharged from Service on 31.12.2020, ie., after implementation of OROP-I (wef 01.07.2014) and OROP-II (wef 01.07.2019) and is getting service pension wef 01.01.2021 based on his last pay drawn as on 31.12.2020. Hence, he is not governed by orders relating to OROP, which was implemented much before he was discharged and during this period, he was enjoying full pay and allowances of a regular Army person.

7. On the q°estion of automatic revision of Pension/ revision of pension at periodical intervals, relevant paràgraphs of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment t 16.03.2022 in WP (C) No 419/2016 the case of Indian Ex-Servicemnen Movement and Ors Vs UOI & Ors, reads as under: "37. The central limb of the submnission of the petitioners is that a revision of OROP' should be automatic. The Union government has submitted that besides lacking any prior precedent, in terms of the practice governing pay sCales, pensions and other financia/ emoluments of government servants, automatic revision wotld be impossible to inmplement. Quite apart from the above consideration, it is evident that the three documents which have been relied upon by the petitioners ramely ) the Koshyari Committee Report; (i) the minutes of the meeting chaired by the Defence Minister on 26 February 2014; and (ui) the communication ated 26 February 2014 to CGDA underscore that "any future enhancement in the rates of pension to be automatically passed on to the past pensioners" The expression 'to be automaticaly passed on" immediately follows upon the words "any future enhancement in the rates of pension" When read together contextually, it signifies that the rates of pension would be passed on to past pensioners without any administrative impediments. The expression 'automatically passed on'cannot be construed as a commitment with reference to any period of time for the computation of benefits. The manner in which and the period over which revisions should take place af pensions, salaries and other financial benefits is a pure question of policy. The decision of the Central Government to revise the pension every five years cannot be held to violate the precepts underlying Article 14.

39. In the decision of this Court in Nakara (supra), the Constitution Bench was deciding on the issue of whether the date of retirement would be a relevant Consideration for determining the application of a revised formula for the computation of pension. The iberalised pension scheme was made applicable pro_pectively to those employees who retired on or after March 31, 1979 in the case of government servants COvered by the 1972 Rules and in respect of defence personne, those who became non-effective on or after April 1, 1979. Consequenty, those who retired prior to the date were not entitled to the beneits of the liberalised pension scheme. It was held that payment of pension constitutes a compensation for the service rendered in the past and as a measUre of social welfare for providing sociO-economic justice to those who have rendered service to the State. The Court noted that earier, the measure of pension was related to the average emoluments duringa periodof thirty-Six months prior to retirement. By a liberalized scheme, the period was reduced to an average of ten months preceding the date of retirement coupled with the above aspects. A slab system for computation was introduced and the ceiling was raised. This Court held that there was no justification for arbitrarily selecting the criteria for eliqibility for the grant of benefits under the scheme based on the date of retirement Hence, this Court held that all pensioners formed a homogeneous cass and where an existing scheme of pension was liberalized a distinction cOuld not be made on the basis of a specified cut-off date. At the same time, it must also be noted that the decision in Nakara (Supra) noted that the financial implication in such matters has some relevance." This Court struck down the portion of the Memoranda by which the benefit of the liberalised pension scheme was only confined to persorns retiring on or after the specifed d¡te which resulted in the benefit being extended to all retirees, irrespective of the date of retirement. It was observed as follows: "63. The financial implication in such matters has some relevance, However, in this connection, we want to steer clear of a misConception. There is no pension fund as it is found either in contributory pension schemes administered in foreign COuntries or as in insurance-linked pensions. Non contributory pensions under 1972 Rules isla State obligation, It is an item of expenditure votedyear to year depending upon the number of pensioners and the estimated expenditure. Now when the iberalised pension scheme was introduced, we would justifiably assume that the government servants would retire from the next day of the coming into operation of the scheme and the burden will have to be computed as imposed by the liberalised scheme. Further Government has been granting since neary a decade temporary increases from time_to time to pensioners. Therefore, the difYerence will be marginal Further let it not be forgotten that the old pensioners are on the way out and their number is fast decreasing. While examiing the financial implication, this Court is only concerned with the additional liability that may be imposed by bringing in pensioners who retired prior to April 1, 1979 within the fold of liberalised pension scheme but effective subsequent to the specified date. That it is a dwindling number is indisputable. And again the arge bulk comprises pensioners from lower echelons of service such as Peons, L.D. C, U.D.C, Assistant etc. In a chart submitted to us, the Union of India has worked Out the pension to the pensioners who have retired prior to the specified date and the comparative advantage, if they are brought within the purview of the litberalised pension scheme. The difterence up to the level of Assistant or even Section Officer is marginal keeping in view that the old pensioners are getting temporary increases. Amongst the higher officers, there will be some difference because the ceiling is raised and that would introduce 0A No 211I/2024 Ex Hav (ACP-1) Ran Singh Vs UOI & Ors the difference. It is however necessary to refer to one fiqure relied upon by respondents. It was said that if pensioners who retired prior to March 31, 1979 are brought within the purview of the iberalised pension scheme Rs 233 Crores would be required for fresh commutation. The apparent fallacy in the sUbmission that if the benefit of commutation is already availed of it cannot and need not be reopened. And availability of other benefits is hardly a relevant factor because pension is admissible to all retirees. The figures Submitted are thus neither fightening nor the liability is supposed to be staggering which would deflect mandate. Even according to the most liberal estimate, the average yearly increase is worked out to be Rs 51 crores but that assumes that every pensioner has suvived till date and will continue to survive. Therefore, we are satisfied that the increase liability consequent upon this judgment is not too high to be unbearable or Such as would have detracted the Government from cOvering the old pensioners under the Scheme. "(emphasis supplied)

40. As oppOSed to the factual matrix in akara (supra), where the iberalised pension scheme was not made applicable to employees ho had retired prior to the cut-off date, in this case the OROP princjple is applicable to all retired army personnel, irrespective of the date of retirement: The cut-off date is only prescribed for determining the base salary used for computing the pension. While for those who retired on or after 2014 the last dran salary s used for computing the pension; for those who retired prior to 2014 the average of the salary drawn in 2013 is used. This policy only seeks to protect those who retired before 2014 since the last drawn salary of the prior retirees might be too low and incomparable to the pay of the 2014 retirees. Moreover, if the maximum salary drawn is to be used as the base value instead of taking the average salany, an additional outlay of Rs 1,45,339. 34 crores wOuld be incurred. The executive is therefore, well within its himits to prescribe a policy keeping in view the financal implications.

42. In Indian Ex-Services League (sUpra), it was contended that in view of the decision in Nakara (supra) all retirees who held the same rank irrespective of the date of retirement must receive the same amount of pension. This Court observed that there was nothing in Nakara (supra) that backed the claim of the appellants that the same pension must be given to all retirees of the same rank. The Court observed that it was held in Nakara (supra) that only the same formula for calculation of pension was to be Used and nowhere was the emoluments of the retirees revised. The ratio decidendi in Nakara (supra) was explained in the following words: "12. The liberalised pension scheme in the context of which the decision was rendered in Nakara f1983) 1 SCC 305: 1983 SCC (L&S) 145: (1983) 2 SCR 165] provided for computation of pension according to a more liberal formula under which "average emoluments" were determnined with reference to the last ten months' salary instead of 36 months' salary provided earlier yielding a higher average, coupled with a slab system and raising the celing limit for pension. This Court held that where the mode of Computation of pension is iberalised from a specified date, its benefit must be given not merely to retirees subsequent to that date but also to earlier existing retirees irrespective of their date of retirement even though the earlier retirees would not be entitled to any arears prior to the specified date on the basis of the revised computation made according to the liberalised formula. For the purpose of such a scheme all existing retirees irrespective of the date of their retirement, were held to constitute one class, any further division within that dass being impermissible. According to that decision, the pension of all OA No 21l/2024 Ex Hav (ACP1) Ran Singh Vs UOI & Ors

It was observed that the effect of the juagment in Nakara (sUpra) was that the same computation according to the liberalised formula must be applicable to pre and post 1 April 1979 retirees and that the decision cannot be Construed to mean that the same amount of pension must be receivable.

47. earlier retirees was to be recomputed as on the specified date in accordance with the liberalised formula of computation on the basis of the average emoluments of each retiree payable on his date of retirement., For this purpose there was no revision of the emoluments of the earlier retirees under the scheme. It was clearly stated that if the pensioners form a lass, their computation canot be by diferent formula affording unequal treatment solely on the ground that some retired earlier and Some retired later. This according to us is the decision in Nakara [(198?) 1 SCC 305 : 1983 SCC (L8S) 145 : (1983) 2 SCR 165] and no more." (emphasis Supplied)

46. The canvass which is sOught to be traversed in these proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution trenches upon a domain which is reserved for executive policy. We must remember that adjudication cannot serve as a substitute for policy. Lon Fuller described public policy issues that come up in adjudication as "polycentric problems, that is, they raise questions that have a "multiplicity of variable and interlocking factors, decisions on each one of which presuppOses a decision on all others" Such matters, acCording to Fuller, are more suitably addressed by elected representatives since they involve negotiations, trade-ofs and a Consensus-driven decision-making process. Fuller argues that adjudication is more appropriate for questions that result in "either-oranswers.20 Most questions of policy involve complex considerations of not only technical and economic factors but also require balancina Competing interests for which democratic reconciliation rather than adjudication is the best remedy. Further, an increased reliance on judges to solve matters of pure policy diminishes the role of other political organs in resolving contested issues of social and political policy which require a democratic dialogue. This is not to say that this COurt will shy away from setting aside policies that impinge on constitutional rights. Rather it is to provide a clear-eyed role of the function that a court serves in a democra The OROP policy may only be challenged on the ground that it is manifestly arbitrary or capricious. In thiS regara, we now ealuate the policy which has been adopted by the Union Government.

48. () The policy of OROP adopted by the Union Government stipulates thus: (i1) BUN () Pensions of past pensioners would be refixed on the basis of the pension of retirees of calendar year 2013: () The benefts will be effective from 1July 2014; In future, the pension would be refixed after every five years. The princjples governing pensions and Cut-off dates can be summarised as followS: Pension for all pensioners would be protected; and () All pensioners who hold the same rank may not for all purposes form a homogenous class. For example, amongst Sepoys diferences do exist in iew of the MACP and ACP schemes. Certain Sepoys receive the pay of the higher ranked personnel; OA No 21I/2024 Ex Hav (ACP-1) Ran Singh Vs UOI & Ors

49. The benefit of a new element in a pensionary scheme can be prospectively applied. However, the scheme cannot bifurcate a homogenous group based on a cut-off date;

(ii) The judgment of the Constitution Bench in Nakara (supra) cannot be interpreted to read the one rank one pension rule into it It was only held that the same principle of computation of pensions must be applied uniformly to a homogenous class; and 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:

51.

(n) It is not a legal mandate that pensioners who held the same rank must be given the same amount of pensIon. The varying benefits that may be applicable to certain personnel which would also impact the pension payable need not be equalised with the rest of the personnel. The definition of OROP 0s uniformly applicabe 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 cdass of the pensioners and periodically' to another cdass of the pensioners; () 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 aerage. 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; (ü) 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."

50. In terms of the communication dated 7 November 2015, the benefit of OROP was to be effected from 1 July 2014. Para 3 () of the communication states that 'in future, the pension would be re-fixed every five years" Such an exercise has renmained to be carried out after the expiry of five years possibly because of the pendency of the present proceedings. We accordingly order and direct that in terms of the communication dated 7 November 2015, a re-fixation exercise shall be carried out from 1 July 2019, upon the expiry of five years. Arrears payable to all eligible pensioners of the armed forces shall be computed and paid over accordingly within a period of three months, " OA No 211/2024 Ex Hav (ACP1) Ran Singh Vs UOI & Ors

8. From the above, it is apparent that re-fixation exercise of pensions OROP-I under OROP scheme shall be carried out upon expiry of five years. was implemented wef 01.07.2014 in respect of those pensioners who retired on or before 01.07.2014. OROP-II scheme has been implemented wef 01.07.2019 for those who retired on or before 01.07.2019. Thereafter, in addition to these, OROP-III has also been implemented wef 01.07.2024, ie., in terms of original OROP order wherein it was envisaged that OROP would be implemented every five years. Nowhere was it mentioned that the pension The Applicant was would be re-fixed on day to day basis under OROP. discharged from Service on 31.12.2020 and his service pension has rightly been fixed based on the last pay drawn as on 31.12.2020 in accordance with Therefore, the provisions of OROP the Pension Regulations and orders. Scheme wef 01.07.2014 and 01.07.2019 cannot be made applicable to him as he was still in service. However, his service pension shall be revised based on the provisions of OROP-III scheme wef 01.07.2024 and it must have been re fixed. As regards difference in scale of pension of Army/Navy/Air Force Personnel and the Territorial personnel with same rank, Group and length of service, these 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 or otherwise.

9. 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.

10. No order on costs. (SANJIV MITTAL) MEMBER (A) Ssyl (GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (J)