New Delhi : The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed with the Centre’s competition that any promise made in Parliament on granting one rank, one pension (OROP), to retired armed forces personnel was not legally binding. However, SC sought extra particulars on the quantity of people that would profit from OROP and the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme(MACPS), which ex-servicemen contended hindered OROP.
The authorities can not return on the sooner definition of OROP, senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi stated, citing repeated commitments and reaffirmations made in subsequent years by the federal government to implement the coverage. Additional Solicitor General N Venkataraman, nonetheless, insisted that no assertion made in the House was legally enforceable.
“Moral obligation is not the same as a legal right,” Venkataraman stated. Financial constraints confronted prompted a reassessment, the ASG stated. The courtroom agreed that guarantees made in the House weren’t legally binding however commented that OROP “painted a rosier picture” than what was given. What was “given was less than promised,” Justice DY Chandrachud noticed. “For any statement made on the floor of the House, accountability lies within Parliament,” Chandrachud stated.
He was sitting alongside Justices Surya Kant and Vikram Nath whereas listening to the petition of ex-servicemen filed by advocate Balaji Srinivasan demanding removing of OROP anomalies. The listening to was adjourned for February 22, to permit the federal government time to submit particulars on ex-servicemen who will profit from OROP and the MACPS scheme.
