Dear Sir,

1. A Lt Gen, an infantry officer commissioned in 1981 after commanding a Corps was appointed as Dy COAS. He after 38 years of service sought and got premature retirement (PMR) in 2019. He approached me yesterday, 09 Sep 2025 complaining that he gets pension less than that of a Brigadier. He in his lengthy message to me in email told me that when he got his retirement prematurely his pay was fixed as that of an Army Cdr as he did not have two years residual service to become an Army Cdr. He was granted the pay of an Army Cdr of Rs 2,25,000 pm. On retirement his pension in 2019 came to 50% of that which is Rs 1,12,500 pm. He moans rightly that he gets pension less than that of a Brigadier from Jul 2024 in OROP-III.
2. Pension of PMR Army Cdr is less than that of Col TS. I corrected him saying that he gets pension less than Col TS with 32.50 years of service which is Rs 1,1,4,125 pm from Jul 2024 in OROP-III. Then he sent me a judgment of AFT, PB, New Delhi which directed the Govt of India to make OROP applicable to officers who got PMR even after issue of policy letter on OROP dated 07 Nov 2015.
3. Options of Min of Def. I told him the Min of Def has two options. One is to implement the judgment of AFT, PB, New Delhi and give OROP to PMR soldiers too. The second option is to challenge the judgment of AFT, PB, New Delhi in Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Govt of India has a battalion of Advocates who get fat appearance fees of Rs 10,000 when they sign the attendance register of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
4. Equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. Now the Hon’ble Supreme Court sees the main argument of AFT, PB, New Delhi on Article 14 of the Constitution which talks about Equality. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catany of judgments ruled that the principle of Equality must satisfy twin conditions. One is Govt of India when classifies pensioners into two groups, the classification must have intelligible differentia. Then the second condition is there must be nexus or causal connection between objective to be achieved by such a classification.
5. Classification of one Group of Soldiers into Two Groups. The meaning is there must be some differentiation in such a division or classification of one group of pensioners into two or more. The AFT, PB, New Delhi said officers whether they superannuate and those who get PMR are of one homogeneous class. I am not an advocate to say whether the Min of Def is right in making pensioners into two classes. One class of pensioners who retired on superannuation and enjoy OROP like I. Another class who seeks PMR even after knowing that the policy letter of OROP dated 7 Nov 2015 bars them from getting OROP. But in several judgments the Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled the Govt of India has the power to classify pensioners into many classes. In the judgment in IESM Vs UOI on OROP, the Supreme Court explained that those who get benefit of Assured Career Progression (ACP) as in 5th CPC and those who get Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) as in 6th CPC are two different classes though all such pensioners are Sepoys to Havildars. Because to get pension of Havildar a Sepoy must put in 30 years of service in ACP whereas in MACP to get pension of Havildar, the Sepoy must put in 24 years of service. Therefore, pensioners who got pension of Havildar due to ACP and MACP belong to two different classes.
6. Second Condition of Objective to be Achieved should have Nexus to Such a Classification. The Govt of India should not blindly classify one homogeneous group into two or more groups though they have the power to make such a classification. The objective sought to be achieved in denying benefit of OROP to those who seek PMR after 7 Nov 2015 is to dissuade soldiers to seek premature retirement. The main demand of Ex-Servicemen who agitated since 4th CPC in 1976 is that they get less pension compared to current pensioners as the benefit of 4th CPC was not passed onto to those who retired in earlies CPCs. Soldiers are also denied serving for 60 years to keep Army young. Therefore, the Govt of India has deprived them of employment and decent livelihood. Because of this they argued for OROP to pensioners which is the same pension for the same rank with same length of service irrespective of date of retirement. So, the objective of classifying pensioners into two classes as Non PMR and PMR is to dissuade the soldiers to seek premature retirement. Is objective of such classification of PMR and Non PMR has been achieved? Frankly I do not know.
7. T SEWA’s Argument of PMR to get Benefit of OROP. When Justice L Narasimha Reddy came to AF Station Hakimpet, Secunderabad to hear the grievances of Ex-Servicemen on OROP, T SEWA argued that since those who seek PMR are just less than 5%, it is unjust to deny them the benefit of OROP. Moreover, the soldiers do not seek PMR unless they have pressing demands such as looking after ailing wife or parents or children. It is incorrect to say they go after greener pasture after seeking PMR. Justice L Narasimha Reddy accepted the argument of T SEWA and in his report suggested PMR soldiers also should get OROP. But Min of Def rejected the report of Justice L Narasimha Reddy and his report is consigned to the dustbin or shredder.
8. I do not know whether the Min of Def has approved to grant OROP to PMRs also implementing the judgment of AFT, PB, New Delhi.
9. Pension Army Cdrs in 8th CPC. I tried to pep up the morale of the Lt Gen (Army Cdr) that 8th CPC is likely to enhance pay of Army Cdrs by a fitment factor of 2 as assessed by many experts. In that case the Army Cdrs will draw pay of Rs 2,25,000 x 2 = Rs 4,50,000 pm from Jan 2026. Then his pension will be 50% of Rs 4,50,000 pm which comes to Rs 2,25,000 pm which is much higher than what he is drawing today at Rs 1,12,500 pm. I did not have the heart to tell him that Col TS with 32.50 years of service (compared to service of 38 years of Lt Gen) will draw pension of Rs 1,14,125 pm x 2 (fitment factor) = Rs 2,28,250 pm higher than the PMR Army Cdr.

Warm regards,
Brig CS Vidyasagar (Retd)