Ex-IPS Officers Warn of ‘Serious Constitutional Breach’ in Finance Act Pension Clause, SC Issues Notice

The petition filed through AoR Alabhya Dhamija assails the “Validation of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules and Principles for Expenditure on Pension Liabilities from the Consolidated Fund of India” as unconstitutional and violative of Article 14.

The Bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and Prasanna B Varale issued notice in the plea and tagged it along with a pending writ petition.

Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Shailesh Madiyal submitted that the relief sought is identical to the issues raised in All India S-30 Pensioners Association v. Union of India, WP(C) No. 525 of 2025, which is already pending before the Court.

Taking note of the submission, the bench issued notice, permitted dasti service, and directed that the matter be tagged with WP(C) 525 of 2025. The Court also directed completion of pleadings in the meantime.

The challenge arises from the Centre’s move to reintroduce pension distinctions based on the date of retirement, a classification that has previously been struck down. The petition points out that the Delhi High Court, in WP(C) 7350 of 2015, categorically held that pre-2006 and post-2006 retirees could not be treated differently for revision of pension. The Supreme Court in 2024 declined to interfere with that judgment, thereby affirming the High Court’s view.

FORIPSO argues that Parliament has attempted, through the Finance Act 2025, to undo settled judicial findings. The petition asserts that the new provision directly contradicts binding precedent including D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, All Manipur Pensioners Association v. State of Manipur, and Union of India v. SPS Vains, all of which reject arbitrary pension classifications.

The petition highlights that Section 150 of the Finance Act seeks to retrospectively validate the Government’s power to classify pensioners based on their date of retirement, “notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment.” According to the petitioners, this amounts to nullifying the Delhi High Court’s judgment and undermining judicial authority without curing any defect that courts had identified.

FORIPSO contends that the new law has an immediate and adverse impact on pending proceedings before the Central Administrative Tribunal and a contempt petition before the Delhi High Court, where enforcement of the earlier judgment is being sought. The petition states that the Finance Act creates a credible and imminent threat to the pension rights of thousands of senior citizens by unsettling their accrued entitlements.

Relying on constitutional principles governing separation of powers, the petition argues that Parliament cannot overturn a judicial decision by re-enacting the same provision in another form, nor can it retrospectively validate a classification already held unconstitutional. Any such legislative action, the petitioners submit, is liable to be struck down as ultra vires.

Maintaining that they need not wait for an actual infringement of their fundamental rights, the petitioners urge the Supreme Court to intervene under Article 32 and declare the impugned validation provision unconstitutional.

The matter will now move forward along with WP(C) 525/2025, where similar issues concerning pension classification and the Finance Act’s scope are under consideration.