Call us for Counseling - 9580048004, For Support - 8860807050.  

Current Affairs

One Rank One Pension

Date: 19 March 2022 Tags: Judiciary & Judgments


The government’s decision on One Rank One Pension (OROP) has been upheld by the Supreme Court.



The OROP was a policy decision of the government that had faced roadblocks in implementation due to petitions.



  • The court said that it did not find any mistakes in constitutional infirmity in implementing the decision.

  • It further said that the court cannot go into the adjudication of policy matters as implementing the OROP was a policy decision.


  • The principle of OROP says that military personnel retiring at the same rank, with the same years of service, must get an equal pension.

  • Usually, military personnel are divided into officers and other classes. The lower level personnel usually retire at 35 years and thus their pension is also lower.

  • They also miss out on the subsequent revision of pay as they are paid on the basis of last drawn salary.


Idea of equal pay

There is a long pending demand to have a uniform pension based on latest salary of the particular rank.


Addressing concerns 

  • Earlier, there was a concept known as the Standard Rate of Pension. Various committees were formed to address the concerns.

  • In 2015, the current government notified the One Rank One Pension scheme, which was to be applicable from 2014.


Challenges in implementing

  • The idea of OROP would have been financially impossible as the strain on state resources was humongous.

  • Since soldiers retire early, they are eligible for pension longer than any other employees. The number of such beneficiaries is also larger than any other department.

  • Pension constitutes more than one-fifth of the total defence budget. This has impacted the capital expenditure of the ministry.


Issues in OROP

  • The petitioners argue that earlier government had agreed for an automatic revision of the rates of pension. This was now replaced by periodic revision.

  • However, the court found no reason to believe that the government’s decision was arbitrary and decided to rule in its favour.