Premature retirees can’t be denied ‘One Rank One Pension’ benefits, rules Armed Forces Tribunal

The Armed Forces Tribunal has ruled that defence personnel, who have sought voluntary, premature retirement, could not be denied benefits under the Defence Ministry’s ‘One Rank One Pension’ (OROP) scheme.

A soldier who was enrolled in the Army in October 1995 was discharged from service in November 2014 at his own request, after rendering over 19 years and one month’s service.

However, as a consequence of having sought premature retirement, he was denied the grant of the OROP benefits. The authorities had cited a new policy on the subject that was issued by the government in 2015.

The tribunal’s Bench, comprising Justice Anu Malhotra and administrative member Rasika Chaube, observed that pensioners form a common category and personnel who opted for premature retirement and qualify for the grant of pension were also included in this general category.

The pension regulations and rules applicable on premature retired personnel, who qualify for pension, are similar to that of a regular pensioner retiring on superannuation or conclusion of his terms of appointment.

The Bench said applying the policy provisions prospectively would imply taking away the right created for premature retired pensioners to receive pension on a par with a regular pensioner.

Apart from creating a differentiation in a homogeneous class, taking away this vested right would also violate the mandate of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in various cases. Thereby, it would make the action of the authorities unsustainable in court, the Bench added.

The Bench observed that once it is found that every person in the Army, Navy and the Air Force who seeks premature retirement forms a homogenous category in the matter of getting OROP benefits, no policy can be formulated for such personnel that creates differentiation in this homogeneous class based on the date and time when they sought premature retirement.

It further noted that the policy in question divided premature retired personnel into three categories – those who took premature retirement before July 2014, between July 2014 and November 2015, and after November 2015.

Differentiating in the same category merely on the basis of these dates without any just cause would amount to violating the rights available under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of fixing the cut-off date and creating differentiation in a homogeneous class, the Bench observed.

India