New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that Centre's hyperbole on the One Rank One Pension (OROP) policy presented a much "rosier picture" than what is actually given to the pensioners of the Armed forces. It asked the Centre to place before it as to how many persons in the Armed forces have received Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP), how many are in Assured Career Progression (ACP), and what would be the financial outlay, if the court directs MACP to be also factored in for OROP.
A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant, and Vikram Nath posed some searching questions to Additional Solicitor General N Venkatraman, appearing for Centre, and wanted to know whether there was any policy prior to the commitments made on the floor of the house on February 17, 2014, that government has agreed in principle to grant OROP.
We have to deal with the fact that there is no statutory definition of OROP. It's a term of Art and a policy decision. Their (petitioners) contention is that there is a discrepancy between what was said in Parliament and the policy which ultimately came. The question is whether that amounts to a violation of Article 14. Your (Centre) hyperbole on the OROP policy presented a much rosier picture than what is actually given to the pensioners , the bench said.
Justice Surya Kant told Venkatraman that OROP benefits come after the service period while MACP comes during the service period.
We want to know how many people have got the MACP. You are saying persons who have got the MACP are a different specific class. If 80 per cent of sepoys get MACP, then will they get OROP? It seems MACP is a barrier to OROP, Justice Kant said.
The ASG said petitioners are trying to compare two un-comparable and Sepoys who have qualified for and who have not qualified for MACP is not the subject matter of the petition.
The bench then asked Venkatraman as to under the rules of the business, who is the competent authority, who has taken the decision concerning the OROP.
The ASG replied that it is a decision taken by the union cabinet which has resulted in the notification. The bench said that it would like to see the note, which culminated into the policy decision to which Venkatraman said that he can place it on record but for the court's eye only.
Justice Kant said that the Centre was fully aware the MACP existed when it had issued the notification and had full knowledge that it is only a fraction of ex-servicemen, who will actually benefit from the OROP.