ESM: Brief on legal issues affecting Veterans

1. There appear to be some doubts and lack of information on the Legal aspects of our case for enhanced pensions and a large number of us are not aware of the important judgments and the prevailing law in the matter. I had received several queries at the AGM and thereafter. I have therefore prepared this brief for the guidance and information of interested members. I may mention that there have been umpteen judgments dealing with pensions (both civil and military) but the three landmark judgments by the Supreme Court, the 1982 Nakra case, the 1991 in the case filed by the IESL and the Sep 2008 judgment in the Maj Gen Vains case.

2. What are we seeking and what is OROP? OROP is a generic term for Pension Parity for the same rank and same Length of Service and this terminology has to be carefully articulated and used. As you will see later, in the 1991 judgment, the SC has turned down OROP as everyone in the same rank with different lengths of service and different ages of retirement cannot be logically equated and the parity it had sought with the serving community with back emoluments was also not agreed to. As a matter of interest, the financial effect of Pension Parity (OROP) was officially estimated at Rs 600 crores per annum in 2004, as per the records of a parliamentary committee which examined the issue. This figure would have increased due to inflation during the last four years but is not that exorbitant.

3. It may also be mentioned that, as communicated to the members earlier, the SC has dismissed the appeal filed by the Government in the Maj Gens Case and Government response to the directions in the final judgment is awaited. Further, some members felt that the MOD/GOI will take shelter behind the matter being subjudice if we went to the SC at this stage. It may be mentioned the did not take shelter behind the Maj Generals case being in the SC, whilst examining and rejecting our request for Pension Parity (OROP) and this is a red herring in our quest for legal redressal. The 1991 judgment was wrongly quoted, out of context, in the recent TV program and has often been used against us by interested parties and it is far from the truth that the SC has turned down what we are seeking.

4. I have been interacting with other stake holders including IESL, IESM and the Airforce Association to get them on board a common platform and present a common public front. Of these IESL apparently wants to fight the court case on its own and does not want the resurgent IESM to figure on the same platform and has also informed that it has commenced preparation of the case. The 1991 case was filed by IESL and did a major damage to our cause. The past and the current Presidents of the Airforce Association, all of them are retired Chiefs, considered my proposal but declined to join in, apparently they are satiated as they are OROP compliant and don’t have the stomach for a fight and left it to the individual Air Force officers to independently fight their case. The task of jointly fighting our case therefore rests between IESM and the Navy Foundation and we will go ahead with it as agreed at the AGM of NFDC.

BRIEF ON LEGAL ISSUES AFFECTING VETERANS
NAKRA JUDGMENT BY THE SUPREME COURT
SC JUDGMENT 1991 – IESL CASE
OPERATIVE PART OF SC JUDGMENT - MAJ GEN CASE SEP -2008
PENSIONER AS DEEMED EMPLOYEE