The Supreme Court has asked key Union ministries to respond to a plea by retired IPS officers opposing a new pension validation clause under the Finance Act, 2025. The officers claim the rule discriminates against pensioners based on their retirement dates and violates the Constitution.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday asked several Union Ministries, including the Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of Law and Justice, to file their responses on a petition challenging a new pension validation clause introduced through the Finance Act, 2025.
The petition has been filed by the Forum of Retired Indian Police Service Officers, which claims that the new provision is unfair and unconstitutional.
The petition argues that retired officers who belong to the same category are being treated differently only because of the date on which they retired.
According to the association, this goes against earlier court rulings which clearly stated that pensioners from the same group cannot be discriminated against based on retirement dates.
A bench comprising Justices K V Viswanathan and Prasanna B Varale took note of the petition which was filed through advocate Alabhya Dhamija and decided to hear the matter along with other similar pending cases in January next year.
The forum has specifically challenged Part IV of the Finance Act, 2025. This part introduces the ‘Validation of the Central Civil Services Rules and Principles for Expenditure on Pension Liabilities from the Consolidated Fund of India’.
According to the petitioners, this new provision will result in unequal treatment among officers who are otherwise part of the same class.
The plea strongly argues that the government is trying to revive pension rules which were already rejected by courts earlier and final verdicts had been passed against such provisions.
It claims that this move is an attempt to bypass judicial decisions by introducing retrospective validation through legislation.
Apart from the ministries of finance, home and law, the petition also names the Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare and the Department of Personnel and Training as respondents in the case.
The petition clearly states:
“It is submitted that the provisions have a direct effect on the petitioner’s pending litigation before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the contempt petition before the Delhi High Court,” it said.
Further highlighting the constitutional concern, the plea says:
“It is trite law that the legislature cannot override or nullify a binding judicial pronouncement by inserting a retrospective provision which validates the provision that failed to cure the very defect the court identified. Such an enactment, which sets at naught, a decision of a court without removing the defect pointed out, is against the rule of law and the Constitution’s scheme of separation of powers…,” it said.
The petition relies on several past judgments which clearly ruled that people belonging to the same pension category cannot be made to suffer unequal treatment simply because of different retirement dates.
The forum has also requested the Supreme Court to declare the new pension validation clause as unlawful.
It has asked the court to hold that the ‘Validation of the Central Civil Services Rules, and Principles for Expenditure on Pension Liabilities from the Consolidated Fund of India’, added through the Finance Act, 2025, is unconstitutional, illegal and beyond the powers of Parliament.
The petition further requests the court to direct the government to carry out previous court orders related to pension payments. It specifically seeks:
“Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to comply with the judgment dated 20.03.2024, passed by the High Court of Delhi, which was upheld by this honourable court dated 04.10.2024 in SLP No… and direct the respondents to remit the pension to the petitioners from 2006 as directed by the high court, including payment of all arrears as per the court’s directions, in a time-bound manner,” it said.
In addition to arrears, the petitioners have also demanded interest on delayed payments, stating that pensioners should be financially compensated for the delay caused by the authorities.
It demands:
“It also sought a direction to the ministry concerned to pay an interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum to the petitioners on the delayed payment of pensionary benefits to them from the date the said amounts became due till the date of actual payment, the plea said.”
The Supreme Court will now take up the matter along with similar cases in January, which could have significant implications for pension policies and the rights of retired government employees across the country.
The case raises important constitutional questions about separation of powers and whether Parliament can validate previously struck-down provisions through retrospective legislation.
Click Here To Read More Reports on Pension
