IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1498 OF 2018
(PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Major Sushil Kumar Jain (Retired),
Son of Late Shri Chetan Lal Jain, aged 64 years,
R/o House No 670 (2nd Floor),
Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi -110009.
Email: majorskjain@gmail.com … Petitioner
Versus
Union of India,
Ministry of Defence
Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare
Through its Secretary
Room No.-5A
South Block, New Delhi-110011 ….. Respondent
WRIT
PETITION IN PUBLIC INTEREST UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA CHALLENGING THE INFRINGEMENT OF ARTICLE 14 AND ARTICLE 21 RIGHTS
OF THE EX-SERVICEMEN OF DEFENCE FORCES IN REGARD TO GET THE ANOMALIES
REMOVED BY THE RESPONDENT EVEN AFTER THE EXPIRY OF TWO YEARS OF
RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY ONE MAN JUDICIAL COMMITTEE (OMJC)
To,
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
The Humble Petition of the
Petitioner above-named
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-
1.
The Petitioner is filing the instant writ petition in public interest
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of
fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of
India, of those Ex-Servicemen of defence forces who have been given one
rank one pension but there are certain anomalies which have been
identified by the respondent itself and have been referred by the
respondent itself to the one man judicial committee (OMJC) for its
recommendations for removing the anomalies pointed out by the respondent
itself but till date same has not been done. It is pertinent to mention
here that the objective envisaged in One Rank One Pension (herein after
referred as ‘OROP’) that uniform pension be paid to the Armed Forces
Personnel retiring in the same rank with the same length of service
irrespective of their date of retirement and any future enhancement in
the rates of pension to be automatically passed on to the past
pensioners. The Government/respondent has failed to get the anomalies
removed even after the recommendations made by one man judicial
committee (OMJC) under the chairmanship of Justice Reddy two years ago
in letter and spirit and has infringing the right to life of the armed
forces pensioners, war widow and its dependent and said act of the
respondent is discriminatory in nature and payment of pension is
arbitrary and is violative of article 14 of the constitution.
2. That the petitioner is retired armed force officer of the Indian Army
and he has served the nation with great velour and courage and always
ready for giving for supreme sacrifice for protection of the integrity
and sovereignty of our nation and after rendering at least more than 22
years of selfless service and was pre-maturely retired in the year 2000
from active service. The petitioner espousing the cause of penury and
misery condition of 18.60 Lakhs of retired armed personnel, war
veterans, war widows, disabled personnel in the line of duty due to
failure of the respondent in removal of the anomalies in the
implementation of OROP in letter and spirit and failure to make the
report of One Man Judicial Committee (hereinafter referred as OMJC)
public even after expiry of about 24 months from the submission of the
report by the Judicial Committee, which is amounting to concealment of
the report from public domain. The petitioner’s Bank account number is
ICICI Bank SB A/C 113001001384, Pan Number is AEHPJ1385G and Aadhar
number is 438170940902. The petitioner has no personal interest, or
private/oblique motive in filing the instant petition. There is no
civil, criminal, revenue or any litigation involving the petitioner,
which has or could have a legal nexus with the issues involved in the
PIL. The petitioner herein is invoking the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble
Court under article 32 of the Constitution of India which being remedial
Fundamental Right and a “the Cornerstone of the Democratic Edifice” as
the protector and guarantor of the Fundamentals Rights & is based
upon the information/documents also which are in public domain. The
failure on the part of the Govt. to get the anomalies removed by the
respondent in regard to One Rank One Pension (OROP) in letter and
spirit which is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Arbitrariness on the part of the respondent is averred from the fact
that first of all respondent itself admitted the anomalies in the
implementation of OROP and subsequently referred the issues to the One
Man Judicial Committee (OMJC) for consideration and for making the
recommendations vide letter dated 20.07.2016 and even after having
received the report of the One Man Judicial Committee (OMJC), respondent
failed to act upon the same. The Press release of Press Information
Bureau, Govt. of India suggests that Mr. Justice L Narasimha Reddy,
Chairman of One man Judicial Committee (OMJC) on One Rank One Pension
(OROP) has been pleased to submit the report to the then Minister for
Defence Mr. Manohar Parrikar on 26th October 2016 and even after lapse
of at least 24 months, the Respondent failed to make the report of the
OMJC public. Further, this issue has been raised in both the houses of
the parliament, however, yet the respondent has failed to get anomalies
removed in regard to the implementation of One Rank One Pension (OROP)
in letter and spirit.
3. That delay in making the report of the One Man Judicial Committee
(OMJC) public and having failed to get the anomalies removed has become a
cause of disquiet (anxiety)/ discontent (Displeasure) in the Armed
Forces Pensioners.
Brief facts & circumstances of the case are given herein below:
4. That it is respectfully submitted that respondent has unveiled and
has attempted to implement the one rank one pension (OROP) to the
defence forces pensioners vide Letter No. 12 (1) 2014/D (Pen/Pol)- part
II dated 07.11.2015. Even the respondent has anticipated that anomalies
would be arising consequent upon the implementation of the OROP scheme
and subsequently, One Man Judicial Committee (OMJC) was appointed under
Chairmanship of Mr. Justice L Narasimha Reddy & issues were referred
for seeking recommendations on the same.
True Copy of the letter dated 07.11.2015 issued by respondent
seeking implementation of One Rank One Pension (OROP) is annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure –P-1 ( Page __to _______).
5. That it is submitted that 7th CPC was constituted for formulating the
principle for computation of the salary/ emoluments of all the Central
Government employees such as civilian and defence and for suggesting
the structure of emoluments thereof. The Commission has submitted its
report on 19.11.2015 wherein the committee in Chapter 10.2 has
acknowledged that the defence force personnel retire at relatively young
age and majority of them are of lower rung defence officials. The
Commission further observed that major chunk of early retirement of
defence forces are of JCO/ ORS in all three service and 7th CPC also
indicates the fact that there are 18.6 Lacs Armed Force Pensioners.
True
copy of relevant extract of the report of 7th CPC dated 19.11.2015
issued by Govt. of India is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure – P-
2 (Page No. ___ to ______)
6. That it is respectfully submitted that even the respondents
anticipated the fact that anomalies would be arising in implementation
of One Rank One Pension (OROP) and has been pleased to appoint an one
man judicial committee (OMJC) under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice L
Narasimha Reddy, Former Chief Justice of Patna High Court, vide MoD
(DESW) Notification No. 12(01)/2014-D(pen/Pol)-Part-II dated 14 December
2015 to examine the anomalies of the One Rank, One Pension (OROP). The
terms of reference of OMJC were made to examine and make
recommendations on references received from the Government, which are
enumerated herein below:-
(i) Measures for the removal of anomalies
that may arise in implementation of the OROP Letter No. 12(1) /2014/D
(Pen/Pol)/Part-II dated 7.11.2015;
(ii) Measures for the removal of
anomalies that may arise out of inter-service issues of the three forces
due to implementation of OROP order ibid;
(iii) Implications on service matters and;
(iv) Any other matter referred by the Central Government on implementation of the OROP related issues.
True
copy of notification for appointment of One man Judicial Committee
under the Chairmanship of Mr. Justice L Narasimha Reddy, former Chief
Justice of Patna High Court and its terms of reference vide
Notification No.12(01)/2014-D(pen/Pol)-Part-II dated 14.12.2015 issued
by Govt. of India is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure – P- 3 (
Page _______to _______).
7. That after constitution of Judicial Committee on OROP, on 14.12.2015,
the Government of India issued a public notice dated 13.04.2016 for
eliciting the views of the public at large and other stake holders on
the anomalies arising out the proposed OROP scheme. The said public
notice further states that Respondents herein had issued notification
dated 07.11.2015 for implementation of OROP for the Defence Forces
Personnel. Further, the Respondent by virtue of the said public notice
sought the representations and suggestions and views on the revised
pension scheme of OROP by 29th April 2016.
True copy of the public
notice dated 13.04.2016 issued by the Government of India for eliciting
the views of the public at large and other stake holders on the
anomalies arising out the proposed OROP scheme is annexed herewith and
marked as Annexure- P- 4 (Page _______to _______)
8. That
consequent upon the public notice, large numbers of representations were
received from the stake holders on the anomalies which have been arisen
in the implementation of OROP. After taking into account of large
numbers of the representations which were received in pursuance of the
supra public notice, Respondent after applying its mind, has reframed
the issues by considering the anomalies crept therein and referred the
issues to One Man Judicial Committee (OMJC) for examining the same. The
relevant extract of the issues which have been reframed by the
respondent, referred to one man Judicial Committee (OMJC) vide letter
dated 20.07.2016, are as under:-
(i) Whether the benefit of OROP is to be extended to Reservists ?
(ii) Whether the pension tables for more than 33 years of qualifying
service are to be prepared ?
(iii) Whether the
methodology followed for fixation of pension under OROP in the absence
of actual retirees in the same rank and same qualifying service for the
below mentioned categories requires any modification ?
Regular L& Capt. getting same pension as Honorary Lieutenant & Captain.
Doctors of AMC/ADC/RVC for the rank Lieutenant, Captain & Major under OROP getting same as Hony Lt. & Hony Captain.
Doctors of AMC/ADC/RVC for the tank of Major getting lower than the regular commissioned officers of the rank of Major.
TA personnel for the rank of Captain / Major and Lt. Col getting the same pension.
Lieutenant/Captain and Major in MNS Category data is blank.
Rank of Major in Regular commissioned officers getting less than Major in EC and SSC category.
Whether
the methodology followed for fixation of pension under OROP for
invalidated out war injury pensioners and liberalized family pensioners
requires any modification in pension fixation formula.
Whether in the
case of JCO/ORS, the pension is to be paid on the basis of the last
rank held instead of last rank pensioned under OROP.
True copy of the
letter dated 20.07.2016 addressed by the Respondent to Mr. Justice L
Narsimha Reddy Head of Judicial Committee on OROP after reframing the
issue for considering the same is annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure –P-5 (Page ___ to ____)
9. That vide notification dated 02.08.2016 issued by the One Man
Judicial Committee (OMJC) on OROP, in order to take the views of defence
personnel sought the views in order to get the larger participation of
the stake-holders, the committee has been pleased to visit at 19 places
and also sought the participation for oral hearing at the stations
mentioned therein the said notification.
True copy of the
notification dated 02.08.2016 issued by one man judicial committee under
the chairmanship of Mr. Justice L. Narsimha Reddy is annexed herewith
and marked as Annexure- P- 6 (Page _______to _______)
10. That on bare perusal of the aforesaid, the Ld. Chairperson of the
said One-man Judicial Committee (OMJC) elaborately heard the grievances
of the defence personnel qua the implementation of the One Rank One
Pension (OROP) in the entire country and vide press information Bureau,
Ministry of Defence suggested that the One man Judicial Committee on One
Rank One Pension (OROP) submitted its report to the then Defence
Minister on 26.10.2016 vide Press Information Bureau release dated
26.10.2016.
True copy of the report of One man Judicial Committee on
One Rank One Pension (OROP) submitted vide press information Bureau
report dated 26.10.2016 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure – P- 7
(Page _______to _______).
11. That it is submitted that since the report has already been
submitted by the Committee to the Government and after expiry of at
least two years, nothing has been heard from the Government side in
regard to the implementation of the report of committee or the
respondent has concealed the report of the Committee, the respondent,
which has been constituted for the betterment and welfare and the
retired armed force personnel and majority of the personnel getting
meager amount of the pension. The respondent has concealed and failed to
act upon the recommendation of the higher powered one man judicial
committee which has extensively and elaborately heard the grievances of
the personnel at the various stations and it seems that the elaborate
recommendation. However, the respondents have concealed the same which
shows the malafide and arbitrariness of the respondent.
12. That the aforesaid callous act of the respondent has defeated the
whole purpose of constituting the high powered One Man Judicial
Committee (OMJC) under the Chairmanship of Former Chief Justice of Patna
High Court and the elaborate process adopted by the committee will be
deprived of its utility if the opinion and recommendations of the expert
body has not been made public and has failed to get the same
implemented.
13. That it is further submitted that on 31.03.2017, in response to
un-starred question No.4992 the Hon’ble Minister for Defence by giving
reply on 31.03.2017 confirmed about the fact on the report submitted by
the judicial committee on 26.10.2016 that it is being examined but till
date no outcome has been given.
True copy of the reply dated
31.03.2017 given by Hon’ble Minster for Defence is annexed herewith and
marked as Annexure- P- 8 ( At page No. ___ to _____)
14. That it is further submitted that the issue qua report of the
committee and its implementation was again raised in the Lok Sabha by
way of Starred question No.374 wherein the Hon’ble Minister for Defence
has made the statement that an internal committee has been constituted
on 19.07.2017 to examine the report of one man Judicial Committee with
respect to feasibility and financial aspects. Said so-called internal
committee is still examining the issue but to of no avail. True copy of
the reply dated 11.08.2017 given by Hon’ble Minster for Defence is
annexed herewith and marked as Annexure- P- 9 ( At page No. ___ to
_____)
15. That it is further submitted that the Hon’ble Minister of State for
Defence has again replied by making a statement in regard to un starred
question no. 211 at the floor of Rahya Sabha vide statement made at the
floor of Rajya Sabha on 18.12.2017 that the internal committee has been
constituted for examining the feasibility aspect of the report of the
one man judicial committee.
True copy of the statement made on the
floor of Rajya Sabha Hon’ble Minster for Defence on 18.12.2017 in
response to un starred question no. 211 is annexed herewith and marked
as Annexure- P-10 (At page No. ___ to _____)
16. That in response to starred question no. 130, statement was made by
the Hon’ble Minster for defence on 27.12.2017 in Lok Sabha and Hon’ble
Minster for Defence once again reiterated about the constitution of
internal committee for examining the feasibility aspect regarding the
implementation of the report of one man judicial committee.
True copy
of the statement made by the Hon’ble Minister of Defence on 27.12.2017
in Lok Sabha is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure – P-11.( At
page No. ___ to _____).
17. That thereafter petitioner made online grievance on 08.07.2018
before the respondent for the removal of the anomalies arose in the
proper implementation of OROP.
True copy of online grievance on made
on 08.07.2018 by the petitioner before respondent is annexed herewith
and marked as Annexure – P-12( At page No. ___ to _____).
18. That respondent vide its letter dated 27.07.2018 gave reply to the
petitioner that report submitted by one Member Judicial Committee on
OROP is still under examination.
True copy of reply given by
respondent to the petitioner vide its letter dated 27.07.2018 is annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure – P-13. ( At page No. ___ to _____).
19.. That the Respondent has failed to appreciate that the One man
Judicial Committee was constituted for solitary function to examine the
socio economic condition of the defence personnel who were relived from
the service at a younger age and such personnel who have served the
nation during the war and also in peace time and the mandate of the
committee to examine and suggest the measure qua implementation in
regard to uniformity qua pension to the defence personnel in order to
get relief from economic hardship. In pursuance thereof, the committee
has gathered the information and heard the grievances of thousands and
thousands of retired defence personnel in the different part of the
country and after gathering the relevant information and after hearing
the various stakeholders, it appears that the elaborate report has been
submitted to the government. Even after expiry of the considerable
period of time of two years, the respondent had not made the said report
public. Therefore, the aforesaid act of the respondent is violation of
the doctrine of legitimate expectation of the defence pensioners.
20. That it is submitted that respondent being instrumentalities of the
state has failed to publish the report even after the expiry of at
least two years and has deprived the expectation of the benefits of
the large numbers of the armed personnel, war widow, medical
de-categorized armed personnel and relief which ought to have been
accrued to them which has not been fulfilled till date due to
slackness on the part of the respondents and the armed force pensioners
in large numbers are having expectation that due to uniformity and
reform in the pension would be raise the bar regarding the standard of
living, which has given locus standi to the petitioner to seek the
judicial review against said act which violates the right to life under
article 21 of the constitution. The act of the respondent is prima
facie arbitrary, discriminatory, unfair, malicious and violative of
principle of natural justice.
21. That this Hon’ble Court in the case of M/s Sethi Auto Service
Station Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors in Civil Appeal No.
6143 of 2008, has examined the concept of legitimate expectation and
laid down that legitimate expectation is at the root of the
constitutional principle of the rule of law.
22. The acts of the respondent are violative of the principle of natural
justice and is contrary to legitimate expectation of the large number
of the armed forces pensioners and it is further submitted that the
highest functionary of the country including respondent administration
have explicitly promised clear and unambiguous manner to the defence
pensioners of our country to get the anomalies removed in the
implementation of the OROP and in furtherance of the promise, the
respondents have constituted the high powered one man judicial committee
under the chairmanship of former Chief Justice, Patna High Court, the
committee has proposed the recommendations and however, the respondent
after expiry of at least 24 months from the day of submission of report,
has failed even to make report public after getting the anomalies
removed in the implementation of OROP, which suggests the arbitrariness,
unfairness and is denial of legitimate expectation of the large numbers
of armed forces pensioners.
23. That the petitioner has not filed any other petition seeking the
same relief before this Hon’ble Court or in any other court.
GROUNDS
Because failure on the part of the Govt. to get the anomalies removed
by the respondent in regard to One Rank One Pension (OROP) in letter
and spirit which is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. The Arbitrariness on the part of the respondent is averred from
the fact that first of all respondent itself admitted the anomalies in
the implementation of OROP and subsequently referred the issues to the
One Man Judicial Committee (OMJC) for consideration and for making the
recommendations vide letter dated 20.07.2016 and even after having
received the report of the One Man Judicial Committee (OMJC), respondent
failed to act upon the same. The Press release of Press Information
Bureau, Govt. of India suggests that Mr. Justice L Narasimha Reddy,
Chairman of One man Judicial Committee (OMJC) on One Rank One Pension
(OROP) has been pleased to submit the report to the then Minister for
Defence Mr. Manohar Parrikar on 26th October 2016 & even after lapse
of at least 24 months, the Respondent failed to make the report of the
OMJC public. Further, this issue has been raised in both the houses of
the parliament, however, yet respondent has failed to get anomalies
removed in regard to the implementation of One Rank One Pension (OROP)
in letter and spirit.
Because delay in making the report of the
One Man Judicial Committee (OMJC) public and having failed to get the
anomalies removed has become a cause of disquiet (anxiety)/ discontent
(Displeasure) in the Armed Forces Pensioners.
Because 7th CPC
was constituted for formulating the principle for computation of the
salary/ emoluments of all the Central Government employees such as
civilian and defence and for suggesting the structure of emoluments
thereof. The Commission has submitted its report on 19.11.2015 wherein
the committee in Chapter 10.2 has acknowledged that the defence force
personnel retire at relatively young age and majority of them are of
lower rung defence officials. The Commission further observed that major
chunk of early retirement of defence forces are of JCO/ ORS in all
three service and 7th CPC also indicates the fact that there are 18.6
Lacs Armed Force Pensioners.
Because respondent has taken initiative of half-heartedly and there was
apprehension that if One Rank One Pension (OROP) would be implemented in
the present form and JCO and other rank of defence personnel will
hardly get any increase in pension. Further, the defence personnel gets
hopes after the recommendation of the parliamentary committee, all their
hopes and expectations was got robbed /deprived.
Because it is
submitted that since the report has already been submitted by the
Committee to the Government and after expiry of at least two years,
nothing has been heard from the Government side in regard to the
implementation of the report of committee or the respondent has
concealed the report of the Committee, the respondent, which has been
constituted for the betterment and welfare and the retired armed force
personnel and majority of the personnel getting meager amount of the
pension.
Because the aforesaid callous act of the respondent has
defeated the whole purpose of constituting the high powered One Man
Judicial Committee (OMJC) under the Chairmanship of Former Chief Justice
of Patna High Court and the elaborate process adopted by the committee
will be deprived of its utility if the opinion and recommendations of
the expert body has not been made public and has failed to get the same
implemented.
Because Respondent has failed to appreciate that the One man Judicial
Committee was constituted for solitary function to examine the socio
economic condition of the defence personnel who were relived from the
service at a younger age and such personnel who have served the nation
during the war and also in peace time and the mandate of the committee
to examine and suggest the measure qua implementation in regard to
uniformity qua pension to the defence personnel in order to get relief
from economic hardship. In pursuance thereof, the committee has gathered
the information and heard the grievances of thousands and thousands of
retired defence personnel in the different part of the country and after
gathering the relevant information and after hearing the various
stakeholders, it appears that the elaborate report has been submitted to
the government. Even after expiry of the considerable period of time of
two years, the respondent had not made the said report public.
Therefore, the aforesaid act of the respondent is violation of the
doctrine of legitimate expectation of the defence pensioners.
Because
respondent being instrumentalities of the state has failed to publish
the report even after the expiry of at least two years and has
deprived the expectation of the benefits of the large numbers of the
armed personnel, war widow, medical de-categorized armed personnel and
relief which ought to have been accrued to them which has not been
fulfilled till date due to slackness on the part of the respondents and
the armed force pensioners in large numbers are having expectation
that due to uniformity and reform in the pension would be raise the
bar regarding the standard of living, which has given locus standi to
the petitioner to seek the judicial review against said act which
violates the right to life under article 21 of the constitution. The act
of the respondent is prima facie arbitrary, discriminatory, unfair,
malicious and violative of principle of natural justice.
Because
acts of the respondent are violative of the principle of natural
justice and is contrary to legitimate expectation of the large number of
the armed forces pensioners and it is further submitted that the
highest functionary of the country including respondent administration
have explicitly promised clear and unambiguous manner to the defence
pensioners of our country to get the anomalies removed in the
implementation of the OROP and in furtherance of the promise, the
respondents have constituted the high powered one man judicial committee
under the chairmanship of former Chief Justice, Patna High Court, the
committee has proposed the recommendations and however, the respondent
after expiry of at least 24 months from the day of submission of report,
has failed even to make report public after getting the anomalies
removed in the implementation of OROP, which suggests the arbitrariness,
unfairness and is denial of legitimate expectation of the large numbers
of armed forces pensioners.
Because the committee which
received the large number of representations, identified the points for
the discussions & made the recommendation for implementation of One
Rank One Pension (OROP) Scheme enumerated in the para -2 of the
notification. Further, the said notification averred that the One Man
Judicial Committee proposed the views the defence personnel and sought
the view in order to get the larger participation of the stake holders,
the committee has been pleased to visit at 19 places and also sought the
participation for oral hearing at the stations mentioned in the said
notification but till date nothing has been done in this regard.
Because
even after hearing the grievances of the defence personnel qua the
implementation of the One Rank One Pension (OROP) in the entire country
by Ld. Chairperson of the said One-man Judicial Committee and even after
the suggestion of press information Bureau, Ministry of Defence that
the One man Judicial Committee on One Rank One Pension (OROP) submitted
its report vide Press Information Bureau report dated 26.10.2016,
grievance of the petitioner has not been redressed.
Because issue
qua report of the committee and its implementation was again raised in
the Lok Sbha by way of Starred questions wherein the Hon’ble Minster
for Defence has made the statement that an internal committee has been
constituted on 19.07.2017 to examine the report of one man Judicial
Committee with respect to feasibility and financial aspects. The
aforesaid conduct of the respondent itself is contradictory and it shows
the lack of seriousness on the part of respondent in implementation of
One Rank One Pension (OROP) that even after lapse of at least one year,
the internal committee was constituted for examining the feasibility for
implementation. The said so-called internal committee is still
examining the issue.
Because this Hon’ble Court in the case of
M/s Sethi Auto Service Station Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors,
has examined the concept of legitimate expectation and laid down that
legitimate expectation is at the root of the constitutional principle of
the rule of law. The act of the respondent are violative of the
principle of natural justice and is contrary to legitimate expectation
of the large number of the armed personnel especially retired personnel
and it is further submitted that the highest functionary of the
country including respondent administration have explicitly promised
clear and unambiguous manner to the defence personnel of our country to
implement the OROP and in furtherance of the promise, the respondents
have constituted the high powered judicial committee under the
chairmanship of former Chief Justice, Patna High Court, Committee has
proposed the recommendation and however the respondent after expiry of
at least 24 months from the day of submission of report, has failed to
even to make report public, which suggests the arbitrariness,
unfairness and is denial of legitimate expectation of the large numbers
of armed forces.
Because respondent has failed to get the
anomalies removed even after making an online grievance before the
respondent in July 2018 and reply has been given by the respondent that
report submitted by one Member Judicial Committee on OROP is still under
examination but no definite reply has been given by the respondent in
this regard, therefore, it is evident from it that respondent has not
been looking the matter in proper perspective..
PRAYER
In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to
respondent for removal of anomalies in the implementation of One Rank
One Pension (OROP) in letter and spirit.
Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to
respondent to make the report of the committee public by getting it
published.
Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to
respondents for the redressal of grievance of the petitioner qua the
implementation of the One Rank One Pension (OROP) in the entire country.
Pass such other order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.
DRAWN BY FILED BY
KUMAR RAJESH SINGH
& PUNAM SINGH
ADVOCATES, SUPREME COURT ( NIRANJANA SINGH )
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
NEW DELHI
DRAWN ON: 21. 10. 2018
FILED ON: .10. 2018
