The center has attributed discrepancies in the “One Rank One Pension” policy to former Finance Minister P Chidambaram, who made a statement in Parliament on OROP in 2014 without any recommendation from the then Union cabinet.
The center’s answer in the Supreme Court comes days after the court questioned discrepancies between the parliamentary discussion on OROP in 2014 and the actual policy in 2015.
OROP stands for “One Rank One Pension”, which aims to ensure pension uniformity for military personnel who retire at the same rank and serve the same length of service.
“The statement on OROP’s approval in principle for defense services was made on February 17, 2014 by the then Finance Minister P Chidambaram, without any recommendation from the then Union cabinet,” the center said in its affidavit presented today at the Supreme Court. has been submitted.
“On the other hand, on November 7, 2015, the Cabinet Secretariat conveyed the Prime Minister’s approval in terms of the Government of India Rule 12 (Transaction of Business Rules) 1961.
At the latest hearing last week, a bench of judges DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath had noted a dispute over the discrepancy between the parliamentary discussion and OROP policy, which had been put forward by the petitioner of the Indian ex-military movement.
The government has said that, in drafting the OROP regime, it has not put forward any discrimination between defense personnel of the same rank and with the same length of service, while petitioners seek OROP at only the same rank, facing the same length. of service.
The center also tried to counter the petitioners’ claim of an “automatic” revision of OROP, saying that such dynamic calculations are “unheard of” in practice.
The petitioner wants OROP to be automatically reviewed every year, instead of the current policy of a periodic review every five years. The petitioners said that veterans who retired in 2014 receive more pension than those who retired between 1965 and 2013, negating the purpose of OROP.
The center has attributed the difference in retirement benefits to a process called Modified Assured Career Progression, or MACP, which provides salary increases for those who haven’t been promoted for decades.
By connecting OROP with MACP, the government has significantly reduced the benefits and overturned the principle of OROP, according to the petitioner.