OROP DENIED

Ex Servicemen get a short shrift again

Inclusion of ‘one rank one pension’ in the Hon’ble President’s speech to the joint session of the Parliament on 4th June 2009 had rightly raised expectations. This is the first in the last twenty-five years this demand has received this kind of attention..

The government’s high powered committee to re-examine the issue was already in session. This committee (CabSec) headed by the Cabinet Secretary had six other top bureaucrats of the country – Secretaries of Home, Defence, Expenditure, Pensions & PW, DOPT and Ex-Servicemen Welfare. It was expected that the CabSec would come up with a fresh approach. Did the CabSec fulfil those expectations? The analysis of their 21-page report follows.

The CabSec refers to reports of various earlier committees and Groups of Ministers (GOM) that examined the issue in the past. Somehow, it only quotes from reports that did not favour grant of OROP. For example, the Parliamentary Committee report headed by Madan Lal Khurana had made a forceful case for OROP, going to the extent of saying that even if there was no precedent, it must be created now. This finds no mention in the CabSec report.

The CabSec has also quoted the SC judgment on a petition filed as a sequel to the decision of the SC in DS Nakara and Ors Vs Union of India.. This has been cited to support CabSec contention against grant of OROP. However, they have made no mention of the recent 8.9.2008 SC judgement in Vains Vs Union of India case dealing with pensions of pre-1996 Maj Generals; it is suggestive of grant of OROP.

The CabSec quotes from the advice of the Law Ministry to the GOM in 2005. “The pensioners as a group consist of persons with different number of years of service and different average pay during the relevant period. If all of them are treated alike by providing same pension while ignoring their respective variations in length of service and average pay, that may amount to treating unequals as equals.” When we consider that the demand of OROP is based on seeking equation among pensioners of same rank and with same length of service this legal opinion becomes irrelevant. This advice might have been rendered in a contextually different situation.

The CabSec refers to a DO of 13 Mar 2009 from the Defence Minister to the Finance Minister on the subject of OROP, “While acceptance of the demand for grant of ‘One Rank One Pension’ is not feasible administratively...” The Defence Secretary who would have approved the draft of this DO was also sitting on the ibid CabSec. So much for unbiased opinion and impartiality on a subject crucially important to the two million Ex-Servicemen!

The CabSec further states that “Grant of OROP cannot be implemented for Ex Servicemen alone and demand for similar dispensation for civilian pensioners would also arise. This dispensation would then have to be extended to pensioners in autonomous bodies, Central and State Universities and Colleges and in all other institutions where the pension scheme is applicable. The financial implications for such a dispensation would then be substantial.” Taking cue from the aforesaid Law Ministry advice, the CabSec could have – and should have – also highlighted the stark differences in service conditions of military personnel vis-a-vis other government employees, and that the ‘unequals’ should not be treated as equals. But they did not, and surely not because of an oversight.. The fiscal stick is the usual weapon for bureaucrats to beat the politicians with and is so much déjà vu. They inflate the scope of demand to an extent where its rejection is the only option left. Without doubt the same argument would have been used many times in the past, including when the free rations for officers were introduced in 1983. Luckily for the defence forces the then PM Indira Gandhi had the sagacity and strength to overrule the objections.

The Ex Servicemen are very much conscious that finances are a problem.. They are agreeable to the expenditure on OROP being spread over more than one financial year if so required; they are more interested in having OROP accepted as a principle. With the allocation of money being made routinely for so many other schemes, the Ex Servicemen get an uneasy feeling that they do not figure anywhere on the list of government priorities.

Having (selectively) cited past findings and recommendations the CabSec then states, “In view of the factors mentioned above, it is not considered feasible to grant ‘One Rank One Pension’ for the following reasons: ....”

These reasons have been listed as:

1. Various committees have considered in the past and found no justification for OROP.
2. Successive pay commissions have not recommended it.
3. Acceptance of the OROP principle has substantial financial implications (8000 to 9000 Cr per annum).
4. Revision of pay scales at times accompanied with revision of educational qualifications/restructuring of cadres/duties attached to the post, the benefit of which need not be passed on to the past pensioners. (Not a new point; it is picked up from the V Pay Commission report).
5. The 1991 SC judgment found the OROP claim untenable.
6. Ministry of Law also opined that the same pension for the same rank is not an acceptable proposition.
7. The GOM in 2005-06 also did not recommend OROP.

The above ‘following reasons’ are a mere summation of seven past selectively chosen reports/recommendations that the CabSec had already cited earlier in their report. Supporting the status quo is always the easiest course, requiring no application of mind. In the instant case it is rather sad. The government had constituted this high powered body and it was expected that with their long experience and breadth of vision they would examine the problem de novo and inject some fresh ideas. Instead, they merely produced a summary of past findings and used it as the basis for their recommendations. This could have been done even by the secretarial staff, with the Secretaries merely pinning their signatures. The report does little to dispel the nagging suspicion that the constitution of the committee, and the statements of two Hon’ble Cabinet Ministers in the Parliament conveying an impression that OROP had been granted, was a mere diversionary exercise, sans sincerity.

The pensions of past (pre-1.1.2006) retirees will surely get enhanced. The exact quantum of increase will be known only after the government orders are issued. However, they would not come at par with the post-1.1.2006 retirees. OROP has been denied.

- Article to be published in Hindi in "Hari Bhoomi" by Lt Gen Raj Kadyan (retd) , Chairman IESM, Fwd by Col(Retd) NK Balakrishnan 10 Aug 09.

ON INDEPENDENCE DAY

My grandfather was a Colonel in the Army and his three sons joined him there. My earliest memory is how alive the house seemed with all these four 6 footers together. Larger than life with fierce moustaches of all types…my nana amd mamas were my earliest heroes. I extended this same unconditional love to the Armed Forces. The olive greens, the black boots lined up in a military row, gleaming like only a soldier’s boots can, the dress uniforms with the polished gold bottons, the solitary camp cot whose narrow confines held all of us wriggling in it like puppies, the white enamel mugs which seemed to hold the very essence of this glamorous life….I think I loved all of it with a white hot intensity.

My father was also in the Forces…I saw another aspect of the Forces with him…fearless warriors patrolling the very skies….I grew up on campuses and I did not know what fear meant. We were the military kids and we were the protectors. I remember being puzzled when adults questioned me “who are you?’…I actually replied that I was an Indian.

I got married outside the forces and saw a different side of life…but my love affair with the Forces never came to a halt. I have seen life come a full circle…when I was really young, the finest of the fine entered our Armed Forces. It was a matter of pride and honour to serve one’s country. And those who joined here could be spotted a mile off…they never tolerated any injustice , they were truly fearless…I had one mama who must have been in his late forties, who while escorting me beat up a guy who said something very nasty to me and who had made the mistake of thinking that I was traveling alone! The way my mama thrashed him with just his bare hands was a sight to behold. The predator turned prey did not have breath in his body to beg for mercy! Contrast that to the hordes who pass by when a woman is being molested and choose to keep mum! I have countless such stories…my nana aged but he still remained a lion. When one walked with him, one could sense the aura of powerful protection he exuded!

Then I saw how people began avoiding a career in the Forces. To become a soldier was now associated with foolishness…keeping pace with the marching materialism, fighting for one’s country was equated with outdated notions of idealism. What place does idealism have in our lives today? What do we teach our kids…do we teach them at winning is what counts or do we teach them that losing gracefully too is an art? Money is the biggest motivator for us today…money and the soldier are opposing forces. A Soldier cannot be money minded! A business man is money oriented, so is a trader, so is a householder! A soldier protects and defends…he fights. No more and no less!

And what do we give him in return? I ask you this question…how do we repay a man who takes up arms in our defence? How can we repay them? These questions are so relevant today because we see it for ourselves that our systems are collapsing but our Armed Forces still stand tall.

Give a soldier his due. He asks for nothing so should we take him so much for granted? While rescuing frightened people during the Mumbai attacks in November, a soldier told them “Do not fear! To get at you, they will have to get me first,”….just one line but what a world of meaning!

If we all did our duty as bravely and unflinchingly as the soldier, we would be in a far happier position today. For to live life with honour is still one of the finest tenets to follow!

-Prem Nath Bhaskaran
Tuesday, 18 August, 2009, 12:43 PM

GOI MEMO ON PAYMENT OF "ADDITIONAL PENSION"

Dear Veterans,

Please do have a look at the portal http://pensionersportal.gov.in/ for
implementation of Government's decision on the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission - Revision of pension of pre-2006 pensioners. (Clarification regarding Payment of Additional Pension/Family Pension) (dated 11/08/2009)

Regards
Col Nair

FAMILY PENSION

Fwd by Dr. Brig VA Narayanan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order has already been issued, in the case of civilian pensioners, regarding how to tackle the cases of family pensioners aged more than 80yrs whose date of birth is not recorded.PAN cards, CGHS Cards, Pass-port, Driving license, Matriculation Certificate - Viz whatever proof of reasonably trustworthy nature (My interpretation) would enable payment of enhanced pension. Even the Voter's Card is good enough. The relevant order is No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 21 May, 2009 issued by the Min of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions. Pension Disbursing Authorities ( Banks paying the pension) are to act on this immediately. Similar order should have been issued in respect of Armed Forces ; However, as usual, it may take its own time in the absence of 'Mai-Baap' for ESM community.

Due to insuficient knowledge of the technique, although I have downloaded the letter, unable to cut& paste the same; Some expert may kindly do it.

Jai Hind

Gp Capt BV Rao(Retd)

COMMENT ON DISCONTENTMENT OF A VETERAN

One needs to support the more disadvantaged of our bretheren and provide help and succour to them once they are out of uniform! Those of us who have it good do not realise the privations that a poor OR faces once he is out of the army on retirement.


Rajib


--- On Tue, 4/8/09, rajiv addy rajibaddy@hotmail.com

COMMENT ON DISCONTENTMENT OF A VETERAN

The problem with the ESM is that we think that everyone else is responsible for our welfare. I think that time has come for us to find ways and means of helping each other and if we cannot do that, atleast retain our dignity and stop seeking help from others.

I have come across many incidents wherein the Veterans have willingly offered to donate their lands for starting the ECHS clinic or the ESM canteen. But, unfortunately, it has not happened in Kerala. Are we all so poor or, is it something else? I think that the time has come for us to introspect.

Navy and Airforce have associations where all ranks are members. However, most of the Army officers prefer to be members of the officers association. Probably, this separation may be running counter to the increasing social aspirations of the retired PBOR. A mechanism to have a common platform like Army Foundation could be thought of. However, there has to be readiness to have PBOR veterans in some of the controlling positions.

Issues related to the Veterans are many and some of them are outside the limits of reality. I have had a veteran officer approaching me to take up a case for getting free membership of a club because of his service in uniform. I can quote many instances where the veterans, insted of helping each other, have resorted to complaining to the RM. Of course, there are good examples too. To quote one, I was pleasanly surprised to see Air Marshal Nair (Retd) sitting at the reception of the ECHS clinic Secunderabad and preparing slips for the patients. He does this every day. Can we hope to see something similar in Kerala? When such display of magnanimity becomes more frequent, there would certainly be a reduction in the percieved distance between the retired officers and the PBOR.

Eapen.

Mon, 3/8/09, eapen kochekkan

THE OROP STATUS

In turning down OROP the Committee has relied on earlier committee and GOM reports, SC judgement on ESL petition filed as a sequel to the decision in DS Nakara & Ors Vs Union of India, and advice of the Ministry of Law.
The Committee also interacted with various ESM Associations, namely, the IESL and the Air Force Association to seek their views. The Associations gave the following major options in regard to OROP:

Option 1 Calculation of the pension of pre-1.1.2006 retirees by reckoning the highest of the pay in the pay band for each rank and thereafter application of weightage to this figure.

Option 2 Calculation of the pension of pre-1.1.2006 retirees by taking the mid-point between the minimum fitment of each rank in the revised pay band and maximum of the pay band and thereafter applying the weightage.

Option 3 Calculation of the pension of pre-1.1.2006 retirees with reference to the notional maximum in the post- 1.1.2006 pay scales. Thereafter the weightage may be applied.

Options 1&2 were found not feasible as even the pension of post 1.1.2006 retirees is not calculated on this basis. "However, the option 3 is similar to the benefit granted in 2006 based on the recommendations of the GOM."

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

PBOR

(1)Bring pre-10.10.1997 PBOR pensioners on par with post 10.10.1997 PBOR pensioners. (financial implication – 470.66 Crore per annum)

(2)Accept enhancement of classification allowance wef 1.1.2006 on notional basis (as in case MSP). This would benefit around 88000 PBOR. (Financial implication – 7.73 Crore per annum). To be implemented wef 1.1.2006 and pay arrears.

(3) (a) Reckon pension of all pre 1.1.2006 PBOR pensioners with reference to a notional maximum in the post 1.1.2006 revised pay structure corresponding to the maximum of pre-Sixth Pay Commission pay scales as per fitment table of each rank.

(b) Also to continue with the enhanced weightage awarded by the GOM.

This will result in average monthly increase in the pension of pre 1.1.2006 PBOR in the range of Rs 800 to Rs 1400 for Gp Y depending on rank and years of service. Will benefit 12 lakh pre 1.1.2006 PBOR pensioners, (financial implication – 1636 Crore per annum). Being a new concession applies prospectively. No arrears.

COMMISSIONED OFFICERS
(4) Remove linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service wef 1.1.2006 instead of 1.9.2008. Will benefit around 1100 officers (Army) whose pension would increase by about Rs 3000 pm (financial implication – 4.83 Crore per annum). Proposal emanates from Sixth PC; implement from 1.1.2006 and pay arrears.

(5) A separate pay scale starting at 67000 and going up to 79000 be created and all offrs at the level of Lt Gen/Addl Secy/equivalent be fixed in this scale. As a result, pension of pre-1..1.2006 Lt Gens will get fixed at 36500.00 and those of Addl Secys at 33500..00. Will benefit roughly 4000 offrs. (Financial implication – 25 Crore per annum). Proposal emanates from Sixth PC; implement from 1.1.2006 and pay arrears.

The Committee has justified the increase for Lt Gens by stating that after the Sixth PC recommendations, the pensions of pre-1.1.2006 Brigs, Colonels and Lt Cols have greatly improved and in percentage terms there is very little difference the pension of pre-1.1.2006 and that with ref to minimum of fitment tables. The difference is around 2% at the level of Lt Col, 6% at the level of Colonel, 11% at the level of Brigadier, 13% at the level of Maj Gen. Only at the level of Lt Gen is there a difference of about 26%.

Unquote

THE OROP has been denied. ESM may comment on the report of the Committee in whatever manner or at whatever forum. However, kindly do not seek clarification/ justification from me, for I have only summarised facts.

We need to take a call on our next course of action. And soon.

Best regards,

Lt Gen (Emeritus) Raj Kadyan, PVSM, AVSM, VSM
Chairman IESM
262, Sector-17A
Gurgaon- 122 001
Tele: +91-124-4015262
+91- 9811226676