SC issues notice on retired IPS officers’ plea challenging Finance Act provisions on pension

New Delhi, Nov 27 (UNI) The Supreme Court has issued notice on a writ petition filed by the Forum of Retired IPS Officers (FORIPSO) challenging the validity of Part IV of the Finance Act, 2025, which retrospectively validates certain Central Civil Services pension rules.

The petition alleges that the provision is ultra vires and violates Article 14 of the Constitution.

A Bench of Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Prasanna B. Varale sought responses from the Ministry of Law and Justice, the Ministry of Finance and the Department of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare.

The retired IPS officers’ association contends that the impugned provision was enacted to nullify the Delhi High Court’s March 20, 2024, judgment upheld by the Supreme Court on October 4, 2024, which held that pensioners cannot be differentiated on the basis of their retirement date.

The challenge relates to disparities between pre-2006 and post-2006 retirees arising from recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission, implemented through an Office Memorandum dated September 1, 2008.

In 2015, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) quashed the OM, relying on landmark rulings in D.S. Nakara (1983), S.P.S. Vains (2008), and All Manipur Pensioners’ Association (2020).

The Delhi High Court later upheld the CAT’s decision and directed the union government to release revised pensions from January 1, 2006, and clear arrears within eight weeks.

Following non-compliance, a contempt petition was filed.

The government argued before the High Court that the retrospective changes introduced through the Finance Act relieved it of compliance.

A single-judge order referring the issue to a division bench was later set aside on May 13.

Meanwhile, similarly placed pensioners filed a separate writ petition before the Supreme Court in which notice was issued on May 23.

On November 24, the Supreme Court directed that the present petition be tagged with the other petition for a joint hearing.

Leave a Reply