Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 05-11-2019 in case of petitioner name Union of India vs Lt. Col. Om Dutt Sharma (Retd.
| |

Supreme Court Ruling on One Rank One Pension (OROP) for Army Postal Service Officers

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated November 5, 2019, addressed the contentious issue of whether personnel serving in the Army Postal Service (APS) on deputation from the Department of Posts were entitled to the benefits of One Rank One Pension (OROP). The case, Union of India & Ors. vs. Lt. Col. Om Dutt Sharma (Retd.) Dead Through LRS & Ors., was a significant decision impacting retired personnel of APS who had claimed entitlement to military pension benefits under OROP.

Background of the Case

The respondent, Lt. Col. Om Dutt Sharma (Retd.), initially filed an application before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Jabalpur, which ruled in his favor, granting him the benefit of OROP. The Union of India challenged this decision, arguing that APS personnel, being deputationists from the Department of Posts, were not entitled to the same pensionary benefits as regular defense personnel. The case was further complicated by the intervention of numerous other retired APS personnel making similar claims.

Petitioners’ Arguments

  • The Union of India contended that APS personnel on deputation from the Department of Posts were governed by civil pension rules.
  • Service conditions for APS personnel differed from those of regular armed forces personnel, including retirement age and pension calculations.
  • The government’s circulars on OROP applied only to personnel receiving pensions from the Ministry of Defence and did not extend to APS officers drawing pensions from the Department of Posts.
  • APS personnel retained their lien in the Department of Posts and had the option to revert to their parent department, reinforcing their civil status.

Respondents’ Arguments

  • The respondents, represented by Lt. Col. Om Dutt Sharma (Retd.), argued that APS personnel held military ranks and should be treated on par with regular Army officers for pension purposes.
  • They pointed out that APS officers were entitled to military service pay and various benefits granted to defense personnel during their service.
  • They relied on circulars from the Ministry of Defence, asserting that OROP was meant for all commissioned officers, including temporary commissioned officers.
  • They cited the Ex-servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules, 1979, which classified APS retirees as ex-servicemen, to strengthen their claim.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court conducted a detailed examination of historical Army Instructions and government circulars, arriving at the following conclusions:

  • APS personnel on deputation from the Department of Posts continued to hold civil status, as evident from their pay structure and service rules.
  • While APS officers were granted military ranks, they did not lose their lien in the Department of Posts, unlike regular defense personnel.
  • Service pension for APS officers was determined under civil pension rules, and there was no provision allowing them to opt for military pensions.
  • The OROP scheme, as per government circulars, was applicable only to personnel drawing pensions from the Defence Ministry, which APS personnel were not.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Union of India, setting aside the order of the Armed Forces Tribunal. It held that APS personnel on deputation from the Department of Posts were not entitled to OROP benefits. The Court emphasized that service conditions, pension structures, and legislative intent did not support the claim that APS officers should receive the same pension as regular Army officers.

Impact of the Judgment

The ruling has significant implications for thousands of retired APS personnel who had sought OROP benefits. Key takeaways from the judgment include:

  • It reinforces the distinction between regular defense personnel and deputationists serving in defense-related roles.
  • It sets a precedent for similar claims by other groups seeking military pension benefits despite their civil status.
  • It upholds the principle that pension benefits must align with the rules applicable at the time of service rather than post-retirement reinterpretations.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s verdict in this case reaffirms the importance of adhering to established service and pension rules. By denying OROP benefits to APS personnel, the Court has upheld the government’s stance that pension benefits must be consistent with service conditions and applicable laws. The ruling ensures clarity in pension classifications and prevents the broadening of defense pension benefits beyond their intended scope.


Petitioner Name: Union of India.
Respondent Name: Lt. Col. Om Dutt Sharma (Retd.) Dead Through LRS & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice Hemant Gupta.
Place Of Incident: India.
Judgment Date: 05-11-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Union of India vs Lt. Col. Om Dutt Sha Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 05-11-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Pension and Gratuity
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Disciplinary Proceedings
See all petitions in Judgment by L. Nageswara Rao
See all petitions in Judgment by Hemant Gupta
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments November 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category

Similar Posts