Armed Forces: One Rank One Pension-OROP – Constitutionality of – Writ petition challenging the manner in which the OROP policy for ex-servicemen of defence forces has been implemented by the Union of India through a letter dated 07.11.2015 issued to the Chiefs of three defence forces – Letter defining OROP as the payment of uniform pension to armed services personnel retiring in the same rank with the same length of service, irrespective of the date of retirement; that OROP aims to bridge the gap between the rate of pension of current and past pensioners at periodic intervals – Petitioners case that in the course of implementation, the principle of OROP has been replaced by ‘one rank multiple pensions’ for persons with the same length of service; that the initial definition of OROP was altered by the UOI and, instead of an automatic revision of the rates of pension, where any future enhancement to the rates of pension are automatically passed on to the past pensioners, the revision now would take place at periodic intervals, is arbitrary and unconstitutional – Held: There is no constitutional infirmity in the OROP principle as defined by the communication dated 07.11.2015 – Definition of OROP is uniformly applicable to all the pensioners irrespective of the date of retirement – Cut-off date is used only for the purpose of determining the base salary for the calculation of pension – While for those who retired after 2014, the last drawn salary is used to calculate pension, for those who retired prior to 2013, the average salary drawn in 2013 is used – Since the uniform application of the last drawn salary for the purpose of calculating pension would put the prior retirees at a disadvantage, the Union Government has taken a policy decision to enhance the base salary for the calculation of pension – Such a decision lies within the ambit of policy choices – There was no conscious policy decision on the part of the Union Government on the modalities for implementing OROP until the communication dated 07.11.2015 came into being, and thus, the communication of 07.11.2015 cannot be invalidated on the ground that it infringed the ‘original understanding’ of OROP – Expression ‘automatically passed on’ cannot be construed as a commitment with reference to any period of time for the computation of benefits – Decision of the Central Government to revise the pension every five years cannot be held to violate the precepts underlying Art. 14 – Policy decision – Constitution of India – Art. 14, 32 – Service law. Pension – One Rank One Pension-OROP – Legitimate Expectation – Invocation of – Held: Doctrine of legitimate expectations can be invoked if a representation made by a public body leads an individual to believe that they would be a recipient of a substantive benefit – Doctrine of legitimate expectations emerges as a facet of Art. 14 – However, in the present case, there was no concrete government policy in existence prior to 07.11.2015 – There existed only certain assurances – These assurances were also to the effect that OROP has been accepted in principle - Implementation was yet to be worked out. Pension – One Rank One Pension – Concept and genesis of – Policy and Principles – Discussed. Administrative Law: Policy Decisions – Scope of judicial review – Held: Adjudication cannot serve as a substitute for policy – Most questions of policy involve complex considerations of not only technical and economic factors but also require balancing competing interests for which democratic reconciliation rather than adjudication is the best remedy – An increased reliance on judges to solve matters of pure policy diminishes the role of other political organs in resolving contested issues of social and political policy, which require a democratic dialogue – It is not that this Court will shy away from setting aside policies that impinge on constitutional rights – Rather it is to provide a clear-eyed role of the function that a court serves in a democracy – One Rank One Pension-OROP is itself a matter of policy and it was open to the makers of the policy to determine the terms of implementation – Policy is of course subject to judicial review on constitutional parameters, which is a distinct issue.