Pre-2006 Pension Gap Unfair, Says Retired IPS Officer in Plea Before Supreme Court
(Judicial Quest News Network)
New Delhi: 27, November, 2025-In a significant challenge with far-reaching implications for thousands of retired police officers, the Association of Retired IPS Officers has moved the Supreme Court questioning the constitutional validity of Part IV of the Finance Act, 2025, terming it ultra vires and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The provision—introduced with retrospective effect—has the effect of nullifying a series of judicial orders that had recognised the right of pre-2006 retirees to pension parity with their post-2006 counterparts.
A Bench comprising Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Prasanna B. Varale issued notice to the Ministry of Law and Justice, the Ministry of Finance, and the Department of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare, seeking their response to the plea.
Pension Parity Battle Spanning Over a Decade
The Association’s petition traces a long and protracted legal struggle that began in 2012, when it first approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, challenging the “arbitrary and unconstitutional” pay disparity between pre-2006 and post-2006 retirees.
On January 15, 2015, the CAT quashed the Office Memorandum creating the disparity, holding it contrary to the landmark Constitution Bench ruling in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (1983), as well as the judgments in Union of India v. S.P.S. Vains (2008) and All Manipur Pensioners Association v. State of Manipur (2020). These judgments collectively affirm that the State cannot classify pensioners on the basis of the date of retirement when they belong to a homogeneous class.
The 7th Central Pay Commission (CPC) later reiterated the same principle, recommending uniform treatment for pre- and post-2016 retirees.
Delhi High Court Affirms Parity; Supreme Court Upholds
After the Union of India challenged the CAT ruling, the Delhi High Court, in its judgment dated March 20, 2024, in All India S-30 Pensioners Association v. Union of India, upheld the CAT’s conclusions. The Court directed that the petitioners would be entitled to receive the revised pension with effect from January 1, 2006, and instructed the government to release all arrears within eight weeks, i.e., by May 15, 2024.
However, the Union Government failed to comply, prompting the pensioners to file a contempt petition before the High Court.
Meanwhile, the Centre filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the March 20 judgment. The SLP was dismissed by the Supreme Court on October 4, 2024, thereby affirming the Delhi High Court’s decision.
Finance Act Brings Retroactive Change; Government Withholds Compliance
During the contempt proceedings on April 8, 2025, the Union Government informed the High Court that, in light of the newly enacted Part IV of the Finance Act, 2025, which conferred retrospective authority regarding pension computation, it was no longer required to comply with the earlier directions of the High Court.
The Retired IPS Officers’ Forum challenged this stance, arguing that no legislative or executive reference for interpretation of law can be entertained in contempt proceedings, where the only issue is compliance with the court’s existing judgment.
The Delhi High Court eventually set aside the Union Government’s referral, observing that Parliament cannot retroactively undo a judgment that has attained finality, particularly when it violates principles laid down in multiple constitutional rulings.
Petition in Supreme Court Alleges Abuse of Legislative Power
The present petition argues that Part IV of the Finance Act, 2025 amounts to a colourable exercise of legislative power, enacted solely to sidestep binding judicial orders. By targeting a specific class of pensioners—pre-2006 retirees—it allegedly creates an artificial and unconstitutional classification, in direct conflict with Article 14 and the jurisprudence evolved in Nakara, Vains, and All Manipur Pensioners Association.
The Forum contends that the provision effectively seeks to “legislate over” a judicial declaration, thereby undermining the doctrine of separation of powers, and striking at the heart of judicial finality.
With notice issued, the Supreme Court is set to examine whether Parliament can, through retrospective legislation, reopen settled issues relating to pension parity and nullify decisions that have been upheld up to the apex court.
The petitioners were represented by Mr. Sailesh Madiyal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Alabhya Dhamija, AOR, along with Mrs. Sonia Dhamija Srivastav, Mr. Arjun Aggarwal, Mr. Amrith Rathi, and Mr. Anchit Singla, Advocates.
