Indian Ex-Servicemen Movement v.

Union of India, (2022) 7 SCC 323

Bench: Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice AM Khanwilkar. Dr. Dhananjaya Y.

Chandrachud, J.

BACKGROUND AND FACTS OF THE CASE

 In order to guarantee equal pensions for military personnel of the same rank and
service length, regardless of retirement date, the Indian government implemented
"One Rank One Pension" (OROP) in 2014.
 Automatic annual pension modifications were a crucial component that ensured the
pensions of older retirees kept up with those of newer ones.
 The government updated OROP in 2015, adding periodic evaluations every five years
in place of the previous automatic modifications.
 Due to this adjustment, pensions for older retirees stagnated for longer periods of
time, resulting in a gap with pensions for younger retirees who received instant
increments every five years.
 In 2016, the Indian Ex-Servicemen Movement (ESM) petitioned the Supreme Court
with a writ case contesting the updated OROP.
 Their main points were that the difference in retirement income between the younger
and older pensioners violated their right to equality and amounted to discrimination.
 Legitimate expectations were impacted by the amended OROP's departure from the
initial promise of automatic modifications.
 The Supreme Court affirmed OROP's validity in 2022.
 It did discover, however, that the periodic revision method produced unfair
discrepancies and went against the equality principle.
 The government was directed by the court to adopt OROP with automatic adjustments
as originally intended and to reimburse pensioners for arrears within a three-month
period.
ISSUES

 Did the government violate older retirees' right to equality under Article 14 of the
Constitution by implementing a redesigned OROP policy with periodic changes that
created unreasonable disparities and discriminated against them?
 Did the policy's original promise be broken and the reasonable expectations that were
established around it be undermined by the updated OROP mechanism, which
replaced automatic annual modifications with sporadic five-year reviews?
 Is it possible that the government's explanation of budgetary limitations will take
precedence above the requirement to guarantee equity and impartial treatment for
every military member under OROP?
 Was the government right to define "automatic revisions" as yearly updates rather
than periodic evaluations, or did it go against the genuine intent and spirit of the
OROP policy?
 Did older retirees who left under the amended OROP scheme suffer unfair
disadvantages?
HOLDING
The One Rank One Pension (OROP) concept, as outlined in the communication dated
November 7, 2015, was deemed to be constitutionally sound by the court. No matter when a
pensioner retired, they were all subject to the same definition of OROP. Furthermore, the
court decided that the pension payments made to officers of the same rank who retired on or
before July 1, 2014, which differed based on their base salary or because of Modified
Assured Career Progression (MACP), could not be deemed arbitrarily determined.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Indian Ex Servicemen Movement and others filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 419 of 2016
against the Union of India and others. The "One Rank One Pension" (OROP) program for
former defense force members was contested in the petition. Many factual and specific
problems were brought up during the case's proceedings before the Supreme Court of India.
During the hearing, the petitioners' distinguished Senior Counsel, Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi,
brought up some points with the court. The submissions contained proof of the Union
government's executive decision to execute OROP, as demonstrated by declarations made by
the Finance Minister, decisions made during meetings, and formal correspondence. The court
also took into account the factual situation and the government's evolving actions that
resulted in the creation of the specific procedures for OROP's implementation, which finally
happened on November 7, 2015. In analysing the procedural history, the court also relied on
the Koshyari Committee Report to provide context for the government's policy decisions and
the adoption of OROP. The notion of legitimate expectations and the function of legislative
reports were also discussed by the court during the hearings.

RATIONALE

The Union Government's implementation of the policy and an analysis of it served as the
foundation for the court's reasoning. It highlighted that the terms for executing the OROP
policy were set forth on November 7, 2015, and that it was an issue of executive policy. The
court made clear that judicial review of the policy within constitutional bounds was a
possibility.

DICTA

The ruling offered insight into the function of Parliamentary Committee reports in legal
processes, stressing that they may be trusted to interpret legislative provisions and take a
minister's statement into consideration. It also included the theory of legitimate expectations,
which applies when someone is misled into thinking they will receive a significant advantage
by a public entity's representations.

PARTY’S ARGUMENT

Petitioners from ESM:

Article 14's guarantee of equality is violated by the government's updated OROP with
periodic evaluations, which unfairly divides older and younger retirees.
The original promise of automatic modifications was important for consistency and justice,
and its absence betrays reasonable expectations.

Union of India (Party in Response):

Budgetary restrictions make automatic modifications financially unmanageable.

The overall goal of OROP is still met by periodic updates, which also provide a fair
compromise in light of resource constraints.

JUDGMENT

The court decided that the OROP principle, as defined by the communication dated 7
November 2015, did not have any constitutional infirmity. It upheld the uniform applicability
of the OROP principle to all pensioners and ruled that the varying pension payable to officers
of the same rank retiring before and after 1 July 2014 could not be held arbitrary.

PREPARED BY

CHAVI MARODIA

GROUP 5