OROP : IESM LETTERS TO JUSTICE L NARSIMHA REDDY, OJC ON OROP

From: Satbir [mailto:satbirsm@gmail.com]
Sent: 29 March 2016 15:49
To: Brig CS Kamboj
Subject: Fwd: ONE RANK ONE PENSION (OROP)

29  March 2016

ONE RANK ONE PENSON (OROP)

Dear Veterans

             The following letters are enclosed herewith for your information and widest circulation please.

(a)             Letter to Justice L.Narasimha Reddy, Retired Chief Justice of Patna High Court dated 25 Mar 2016 regarding “Urgent Need to Rectify Anomalies in OROP in Govt Notification dated 07 Nov 2015 and Table dated 03 Feb 2016.

(b)          Letter to Justice L.Narasimha Reddy, Retired Chief Justice of Patna High Court dated 25 Mar 2016 regarding “Change of Definition of OROP in various correspondence of DESW Noticed.

 With regards,                                      

Yours Sincerely,                                                          

Maj Gen Satbir Singh, SM (Retd)                                                                                                             

Chairman Indian Ex-Servicemen Movement (IESM)                                                                                                                                                       

Mobile: 9312404269, 01244110570                                                                                           

Email:satbirsm@gmail.com      

Enclosures  :- As above. (.............pages only)

----------

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      25 March 2016

Shri Manohar Parrikar
Hon’ble Raksha Mantri
104, South Block, New Delhi

ONE RANK ONE PENSON (OROP)

Dear Sir,

            The following letters are enclosed for onward submission to One Man Judicial Committee Justice L.Narasimha Reddy, Retired Chief Justice of Patna High Court for the resolution of anomalies in the Implementation of OROP.

(a)             Letter to Justice L.Narasimha Reddy, Retired Chief Justice of Patna High Court dated 25 Mar 2016 regarding “Urgent Need to Rectify Anomalies in OROP in Govt Notification dated 07 Nov 2015 and Table dated 03 Feb 2016.

(b)              Letter to Justice L.Narasimha Reddy, Retired Chief Justice of Patna High Court dated 25 Mar 2016 regarding “Change of Definition of OROP in various correspondence of DESW Noticed.

            You, are requested to kindly forward the same to Justice L.Narasimha Reddy for his consideration please.

With regards,

Yours Sincerely,

Maj Gen Satbir Singh, SM (Retd)
Chairman Indian Ex-Servicemen Movement (IESM )
Mobile: 9312404269, 01244110570 Email:satbirsm@gmail.com

---------

25 March 2016

Justice L.Narasimha Reddy
Retired Chief Justice of Patna High Court

C/OThe Raksha Mantri
South Block, Ministry of Defence
New Delhi

Urgent Need to Rectify Anomalies in OROP
in Govt notification dated 7 Nov 15
and Tables Dated 03.02.2016

Dear Sir,

Please refer to Govt executive letter dated 26 Feb 14, press release dated 5 Sep 15, Govt notification dated 7 Nov 15 and 14 Dec 15. Please also refer to the statement made by MOS Defense Sh Rao Inderjit Singh in Parliament on 2 Dec in reply to question asked by Sh RajeevChandrashekhar regarding implementation of OROP Also refer to Implementation Tables issued vide Govt of India letter . (All attached)

One Rank One Pension was approved by UPA Govt in budget dated 17 Feb 14 and then by NDA Govt in their budget dated 10 Jun 14. UPA Government issued an executive order dated 26 Feb 14 for the implementation of OROP dues to veterans at the earliest. This was never implemented by the MOD nor a demand note was ever raised. The approved definition of OROP by two Governments is given below.

One Rank One Pension (OROP) implies that uniform pension be paid to the Armed Forces Personnel retiring in the same rankwith the same length of service irrespective of their date of retirement and any future enhancement in the rates of pension to beautomatically passed on to the past pensioners. This implies bridging the gap between the rate of pension of the current pensioners and the past pensioners, and also future enhancements in the rate of pension to be automatically passed on to the past pensioners.

OROP implies that a senior rank soldier should never draw pension less than his junior rank soldier. This cardinal principle is the soul of OROP and must never be violated.

Government issued a notification on 7 Nov 15 for implementing OROP. Government reiterated above-mentioned definition of OROP in the letter but introduced some conditions in the notification that completely destroy the definition approved by two parliaments. These conditions have created four anomalies which completely violates the definition and thereby, the soul of OROP. These anomalies are discussed in detail in succeeding paragraphs.

1)    Fixation of Pension on calendar year of 2013 instead of FY of 2014: Fixation of pension as per calendar year 2013 would result in past retirees getting less pension of one increment than the soldier retiring today. This will result in past retirees drawing lesser pensions than present retirees. This will completely destroy definition of OROP approved by two Parliaments and will also result in loss of one increment across the board for past pensioners in perpetuity.

2)    Fixation of pension as mean of Min and Max pension: Fixing pension as mean of Min and Max pension of 2013 would result in more anomalies wherein same ranks with same length of service will draw two or more different pensions thus violating the very principle of OROP. This issue was discussed with RM in various meetings and after due deliberations it was decided that accepting highest pension of each rank in the year would meet the requirement as base of pension.

3)    Payment wef 1^st Jul 14 instead of 1^st Apr 14: OROP has been approved in budget of 2014-15 by two parliaments. As per norms of Government, all proposals approved in budget are applicable from 1^st April of that FY. In the case of OROP, the Govt had issued specific orders to its applicability wef 1^st April 14. Hence implementation date for OROP from 1^st July will be against the Parliament approval. Changing the date would result in loss of 3 months emoluments for OROP across the board. However, if OROP implementation date is to be kept as 1^st July, then the base pension should also be accepted as per the PPOs of July 2014.

4)    Pension Equalisation every five year: Pension equalisation every five year will result in a senior rank soldier drawing lesser pension than a junior rank soldier for five years thus OROP definition will be violated for five years. This will also result in permanent violation of definition as fresh cases will come up every year.

5)  Errors in OROP Tables issued dated 03.02.2016:  There are numerous errors in the constitution of Tables.  How this Table have been made is not known.  The fact is that no senior rank defence personnel should ever draw less pension their junior persons.  There are numerous instances in the Tables where in the senior rank and senior in service have been shown to draw less pension then his junior.  The tables need to be worked out afresh after all anomalies have been removed.  The most appropriate method to construct Tables would be to base these tables on live data.  The PPOs of defene personnel who retired in 2013 would removal that a Sepoywith 15 years of service should  get pension of approx Rs 7200 per month where as in the  Tables, pension has been mentioned as Rs 6665/-.  This does not satisfy the approved OROP definition.  There are minimum such examples.  Nb Subedar of ‘Y’ group has been shown to get less then X Gp Havildar this making a senior rank defence, personal gets less than junior rank.  Nb Sub TA is shown getting more pension then Regular Nb Sub.  The three Service HQs pay cells must be involved in making this Table afresh. 

These anomalies will result in lesser pensions to widows, soldiers, NCOs and JCOs than what will be due to them on approval of OROP. This will result in veterans not getting OROP as per approved definition and will create large discontentment across all ranks.

There is a need to have a relook at the pensions of Hon Nb Subedars, Majors and Lt Cols.

a)     Some Havildars are granted rank of Hon Naib Subedar in view of their exemplary service. These soldiers are not granted pension of Naib Subedar thus making the Hon rank just ceremonial. It is requested that Hon Naib Subedars should get pension of a NaibSubedar rather than that of a Havildar. Similarly, this must be accepted as a principle and it should be applicable to all Hon ranks in case of NCOs and JCOs.

b)    There are only a few Majors as veterans. Moreover no officer is retiring in Major rank now. In the past, officers were promoted to Major rank after completing 13 yrs of service whereas present officers are getting promotion of Lt Col in 13 yrs. It will be justified to grant all pensioners of the rank of Major, minimum pension of Lt Col as they cannot be compared to present retirees as officers are not retiring as Majors any more. Number of such affected officers is not more than 800 and will not cause heavy burden to Govt.

c)     Similarly, all pre-2004 retiree Lt Cols should get the minimum pension of full Col. Presently all officers retire in the rank of Colonel hence all Lt Col equivalents should be granted min pension of Colonels.

          The above anomalies/discrepancies are being brought before you for resolution please.

          We will be available for the Presentation/discussion any time and date convenient to you.

With regards,

Yours Sincerely,

Maj Gen Satbir Singh, SM (Retd)
Chairman Indian Ex-Servicemen Movement (IESM )
Mobile: 9312404269, 01244110570 Email:satbirsm@gmail.com       

----------

25 March 2016

Justice L.Narasimha Reddy
Retired Chief Justice of Patna High Court

C/OThe Raksha Mantri
South Block, Ministry of Defence
New Delhi

Change of Definition of OROP
in Various Correspondence of DESW Noticed

Dear Sir,

Pl refer to:

1.   MOD letter no 12(01/2014-D (Pen/Pol) dated 26 Feb 14

2.   MOM of the meeting chaired by RM on 26 Feb 14 to discuss OROP

3.   Reply of MOS Defense Sh Rao Inderjit Singh Dated 2 Dec 14 in a written reply to Sh Rajeev Chandrashekhar inRajya Sabha

4.   GOI press release dated 5 Sep 15

5.   GOI letter no 12(1)/2014 dated 7 Nov 15 and

6.   GOI letter no 12(01)/2014-D(pen/pol)- Part–II dated 14 Dec 15

GOI has accepted following definition of OROP in the letters dated 26 Feb 14 and MOS statement in Rajya Sabha dated 2 Dec 14.

One Rank One Pension (OROP) implies that uniform pension be paid to the Armed Forces Personnel retiring in the same rank with the same length of service irrespective of their date of retirement and any future enhancement in the rates of pension to be automatically passed on to the past pensioners. This implies bridging the gap between the rate of pension of the current pensioners and the past pensioners, and also future enhancements in the rate of pension to be automatically passed on to the past pensioners.

However in the Press Release dated 5 Sep 14, a phrase has been added at the end of the OROP definition “at periodic intervals”.

Definition of OROP given in 5 Sep Press Release is given below:

One Rank One Pension (OROP) implies that uniform pension be paid to the Armed Forces Personnel retiring in the same rank with the same length of service, irrespective of their date of retirement. Future enhancement in the rates of pension to be automatically passed on to the past pensioners. This implies bridging the gap between the rate of pension of the current pensioners and the past pensioners at periodic intervals.

This phrase has probably been added to justify pension equalisation every five years as is being propagated by the MOD.

Again, another attempt has been made to change/ distort the definition of OROP in GOI notification dated 7 Nov 15. OROP definition given in 7 Nov letter is reproduced below.

One Rank One Pension (OROP) implies that uniform pension be paid to the Defence Forces Personnel retiring in the same rank with the same length of service, regardless of their date of retirement, which implies bridging the gap between the rate of pension of the current pensioners and the past pensioners at periodic intervals.

I am sure you would notice subtle progressive change in the language of definition of OROP, wherein the line “This implies bridging the gap between the rate of pension of the current pensioners and the past pensioners, and also future enhancements in the rate of pension to be automatically passed on to the past pensioner” has been changed with the line “This implies bridging the gap between the rate of pension of the current pensioners and the past pensioners at periodic intervals”.

It further states as one of the salient features that it has been decided that the gap between rate of pension of current pensioners and past pensioners would be refixed every five years.

This completely changes the definition of OROP and if implemented in its changed form, it will deprive past pensioners of monetary benefits and will completely destroy the definition of OROP and in turn, destroy the very soul of OROP.

UFESM (JM) believes that this change in the definition in OROP has been inserted only to justify pension equalisation every five years. Pension equalisation every five years is against the definition of OROP and is a matter of serious concern for all Ex-servicemen. The correct and acceptable situation is that pension equalisation must be done as soon as pension of two soldiers with same rank and same length of service is noticed to be different and it must be equalised immediately. Ex-servicemen are ready to accept pension equalisation every year only to make administration of this concept easily implementable. Incidentally, any computation can be easily achieved on press of a button in today’s computer era – and this needs no emphasis.

However the matter did not end at one instance of change of definition of OROP, it has been once again repeated in GOI letter dated 14 Dec 15 “OROP implies that uniform pension be paid to the Defence Forces Personnel retiring in the same rank with the same length of service, regardless of their date of retirement, which implies that bridging the gap between the rate of pension of current and past pensioners at periodic intervals”.

The GOI letter dated 14 Dec 15 is the notification for the formation of one-man judicial committee. It is a matter of great importance that if incorrect definition is given to the Chairman of anomalies committee, he is bound to work within the constraints given by MOD and will thus give his recommendations as per incorrect definition given to him. This will be gross injustice to ex-servicemen. Ex-servicemen might be justified to think that these changes are a planned move for the vexed problem of OROP in view of the past experiences in which meanings of Honorable Supreme Court orders were changed by making subtle changes in the decision of HSC.

We sincerely hope that these changes are probably only clerical errors and not a planned direction change. We therefore sincerely request you to correct these mistakes in definition of OROP and give following definition approved by Parliament to all committees.

One Rank One Pension (OROP) implies that uniform pension be paid to the Armed Forces Personnel retiring in the same rank with the same length of service irrespective of their date of retirement and any future enhancement in the rates of pension to be automatically passed on to the past pensioners. This implies bridging the gap between the rate of pension of the current pensioners and the past pensioners, and also future enhancements in the rate of pension to be automatically passed on to the past pensioners.

May we request for resolution of the serious anomaly since it changes the soul of approved OROP definition as per Govt Executive Order dated 26 Feb 2014 and also given out by MoS State Defence Sh. Rao Inderjit Singh dated 02 Dec 2014 in the Parliament.  IESM will be available for personal hearing on any date and time convenient please. 

          With regards,

Yours Sincerely,

Maj Gen Satbir Singh, SM (Retd)
Chairman Indian Ex-Servicemen Movement (IESM )
Mobile: 9312404269, 01244110570 Email:satbirsm@gmail.com       

-----------

-----------

---------

---------

(Source- Via e-mail from Brig Chander Kamboj, ReportMy Signal blog)/Maj Gen Satbir Singh (Retd)

WHY DOES INDIA BREED SO MANY TRAITORS? By Maj Gen Mrinal Suman (Retd)

While studying Indian history in school days, one was repeatedly told that the foreign invaders resorted to ‘divide and rule’ policy to gain control over India. They were painted as unscrupulous schemers who exploited the simple, trusting and gullible Indians. It is only at a much later stage that one realised the hollowness of the above assertion. The truth is that we are adept at producing hordes of traitors who revel in India’s ruin. Every victory of the foreign invaders was facilitated by the local collaborators who betrayed their kings for some devious reward or to settle personal scores. No fort was ever conquered without the infidelity of a trusted minister/commander.

Unfortunately, centuries of slavery has taught us nothing. We carry on spawning throngs of people who can stoop down to any level (even imperil national security) for their petty gains. Our leaders, media and intellectuals appear to have a single point agenda: how to generate innovative issues to keep the nation divided and embroiled in petty bickering and internal dissentions; and thereby impede progress and bring a bad name to the country. They abhor India’s rise. Let me elucidate.

First, The leaders are the fountainhead of all fissiparous tendencies. For them, vote bank politics take precedence over everything else. One does not have to be a visionary to predict the danger of abetting illegal migration from Bangladesh for garnering votes. But unscrupulous political leaders carry on unconcerned. One hangs one’s head in shame when political leaders extend their support to a delinquent student leader who seeks destruction of India. Comparing him with martyr Bhagat Singh is by far the most perfidious act.

Perhaps, India is the only country that has an ignominious track record of producing Home Ministers who revelled in shaming the country. One concocted theories of saffron terrorism to please his party bosses. In so doing, he presented a convenient propaganda tool to Pakistan. Another Home Minister did the unthinkable. He declared a terrorist to be innocent in an affidavit to the court. The aim was to ensnare the opposition leaders in a false case. Sadly, India’s intelligence gathering apparatus suffered immense damage in the process.

When a leader declares ‘it's safer to be a cow than to be a Muslim in India today’, he puts the whole country to shame. The world media flashes such headlines with sinister pleasure. India’s image takes a terrible beating. Just to score a brownie point against the Govt, he presents a convenient propaganda handle to the hostile forces. How low can a leader stoop!

Recently, a renowned advocate and a former law minister told a TV channel that shouting slogans for the destruction of the country is not debarred in the constitution. According to him, freedom of expression was of paramount importance. Even demand for secession (azadi) was justified. As the interview progressed, one was not only amazed by his perverted reasoning but also shocked to see the brazenness with which he was arguing. Survival of India appeared to be of no concern to him. One wondered if one was watching an Indian or a Pakistani channel.

Secondly, The media personnel - the less said the better. From their conduct, it appears that many of them are foreign plants and India means little to them. When a leading media house invited a vicious and remorseless enemy like General Pervez Musharraf and groveled before him, it marked the lowest depths of shamelessness to which journalism could sink. Instead of castigating him for the Kargil war, he was treated as a peace loving guest.

Both the electronic and the print media never report ‘positives’ about the country. Ugly India sells (a la ‘Slumdog Millionaire’); and not progressive India. Remember how a TV reporter failed to digest the popularity of Modi in the US and tried to incite the crowd with provocative remarks. But then they get paid to demean India, and not to extol it.

Immense damage is also being inflicted on the unity of the country by the media through its Machiavellian and skewed reporting. Every news item is deliberately reported with a religious, caste or creed slant – ‘a dalit girl molested in a Delhi bus’ (as if other women are not molested in Delhi buses) or ‘church guard killed’ (in reality an argument between two security guards had turned violent) or ‘Muslim driver runs over a boy’ (as if his being a Muslim is of any relevance). Recently, in a case of cattle stealing, a leading newspaper could not resist the temptation to add that ‘one of the five thieves is learnt to have had connections with a cow protection group in the past’. How cunningly, a simply case of robbery was given a communal taint.

Petty vandals are given the coverage befitting a mass leader. It was obnoxious to see two TV channels airing their interviews with a student leader charged with sedition. The worst was the indulgent demeanour of the TV anchors; as if a national hero was being eulogised. The interviews were repeatedly telecast at prime time. Did these channels think of interviewing war heroes or martyrs’ families? Forget it; that would have been a pro-India act and that is an act of sacrilege for them.

Thirdly, The self-proclaimed secular intelligentsia has done maximum damage to India’s prestige and standing. Some of them appear to be fifth columnists masquerading as progressive intellectuals. In which country of the world would the intelligentsia write to the US Govt not to receive their PM? Honestly, it is simply loathsome: duly elected representative of 1.25 billion Indians being subjected to indignities by a shameless bunch of foreign-educated and foreign-paid anti-national elements. Unfortunately, their protests get huge publicity abroad, thereby undermining all efforts to raise India’s standing in the world forum.

It can be said with certainty that the well-orchestrated campaign of intolerance was totally malicious in intent. The sole objective was to stall all progressive reforms by tarnishing the image of the Govt. How else can anti-nationalism be defined? As expected, having dented India’s reputation, sold-out media chose to ignore the true facts as they emerged.

Hundreds of Christians, led by the church leaders, marched in protest on the roads of Delhi against the alleged vandalism of churches and a theft in a Christian school. Routine cases of petty crimes were cited to suggest an anti-minority conspiracy. They ensured extensive coverage of their protests by the foreign and Indian media, thereby damaging India’s secular image. Foreign channels are only too eager to shame India. Unwisely, even Obama got carried away with his uncalled for advice, losing considerable goodwill in India. Reportedly, he said so on the prodding of an Indian leader.

Soldiers and the national symbols: the national flag, the national anthem and the national salutations are representative of a country’s national identity and pride. They symbolise ancient heritage, current challenges and future aspirations. For soldiers, their sanctity is incontestable. Thousands of soldiers have sacrificed their lives to plant our tricolour on the enemy strongholds, thereby earning the ultimate honour of having their bodies draped in the national flag.

Notes of the national anthem make every soldier get goose pimples. The response is instantaneous and the effect is electrifying. Even in their homes, they stand up with their families when the national anthem is played on TV during Independence/Republic Day ceremonies.

Similarly, national salutations like ‘Hindustan Zindabad’, ‘Jai Hind’ and ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’ make adrenalin surge through their bodies. The salutations act as a rallying call to inspire the soldiers for the ultimate sacrifice. All military functions conclude with full-throated renditions of ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’. Therefore, the current controversy regarding national salutations is highly painful to the soldiers. They fail to understand as to how an Indian can have difficulty in hailing the country. How can ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’ be assigned religious overtones.

Finally: history stands testimony to the fact that a nation infested with the virus of treachery, deceitfulness and perfidy has always been an easy prey for foreign subjugation. No one knows this bitter truth better than India. Yet, our leaders, media and intelligentsia keep discrediting and harming the country through their seditious utterances and activities. Under the garb of freedom of speech, they support those felonious speakers who vow not to rest till India is destroyed.

When Paris was hit by the terrorist attacks, the whole country gave a unified response. Compare it with our Batla House encounter against Indian Mujahdeen where two terrorists were killed and two arrested. A brave police officer lost his life. Yet, many seditious elements had the impudence to term the encounter to be ‘fake’.

Therefore, the mystery remains unsolved. Why does India continue to produce so many Jaichand and Mir Jafars? Is India a cursed nation or is treachery a part of our DNA? 

One wonders.

(Source -  Via e-mail from Col YC Mehra (Retd) and                 http://www.sify.com/news/why-does-india-breed-so-many-traitors-news-columns-qd3cvCeiadfdc.html)

---

7th Pay Commission: Armed forces pitch for better compensation, common pay matrix - by Sushant Singh

 March 29, 2016 12:51 pm : 7th Pay Commission: The absence of the military in the Empowered Committee has been a major cause of concern for the defence services.

According to those present at the Mar11 meeting, the Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha spoke before the presentation by stating that issues about to be raised are important as there is discontent among the rank and file.At about 10 am on March 11, the three military chiefs were in the meeting room of the cabinet secretariat to attend a crucial briefing. The Pay and Allowances Review Committee (PARC) of the three services, comprising Major General rank officers, had been allotted 45 minutes to brief the Empowered Committee of Secretaries to process the recommendations of the Seventh Central Pay Commission (7th CPC).

The Empowered Committee is chaired by the Cabinet Secretary, PK Sinha and is meant to function as a screening committee to process the recommendations with regard to all relevant factors of the 7th CPC in an expeditious, detailed and holistic fashion. The Empowered Committee consists of 13 secretaries, which includes nine IAS officers, one IPS officer and one from Railway Board. There are, however, no military officers on the committee. “We are 29.7 per cent of all central government employees, as are the Railways. They have a member on the Committee but we don’t. The IPS, with strength of only 4,675 officers, has a member,” a senior military officer told The Indian Express.

The absence of the military in the Empowered Committee has been a major cause of concern for the defence services. The emotions of those in uniform have been running high since the time 7th CPC submitted its recommendations to the government in November last year. Military officials monitoring various social media platforms told The Indian Express that they have been “shocked at the vehement anger and outrage” among military personnel “not only against the civilian bureaucracy but also senior military officials” over the recommendations of the 7th CPC.

According to those present at the March 11 meeting, the Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha spoke before the presentation by stating that the issues about to be raised are important as there is discontent among the rank and file. Requesting the committee to look favourably at the issues, he highlighted the fact that the status of the armed forces has been downgraded in the 7th CPC, and for the military, status and honour is the most important aspect of their service to the country.

The 25-minute PowerPoint presentation by PARC raised four demands before the Empowered Committee. The first demand was for grant of a Common Pay Matrix for the military and the civilian employees. The Defence Pay Matrix of the 7th CPC has only 24 pay levels while there are 40 pay levels for the civilians. This means that all military officers will stagnate at the pay reached after 31 years of service, which will, in turn mean that their pensions will be Rs 20,000 less than their civilian counterparts.

Senior civilian government officials say that due to higher number of ranks in the military compared to the civilian bureaucracy, it is not feasible to have a Common Pay Matrix. They say that the defence services were thus offered the option of a separate pay commission, which was rejected by them. “Our attempt is to get fully integrated into the system, at par with the civilians. Going for a separate pay commission defeats that purpose. We instead want to have a member on the pay commission,” explained a military official.

The second demand of the military pertained to Reciprocity of Allowances. A large number of allowances are applicable to civilian employees but not to the uniformed personnel. In April 2009, the government issued a letter stating that all compensatory field and other allowances applicable to the armed forces will also be applicable to the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF). But the allowances of CAPF have not been extended to the armed forces.

In its presentation, PARC furnished the example of a CAPF DIG in Leh would be earning an allowance of Rs 57,500 while a Brigadier will get only Rs 17,000. Similarly, a military jawan deployed for disaster management like flood or earthquake relief shall get no allowance while a National Disaster Response Force will gets Rs 6,000 every time he is deployed, and a CAPF jawan will earn Rs 17,000.

“The comparison with CAPF is not fair. Some of their allowances look high because of the concept of detachment and special duty allowances. The military now wants the option, at every place, to choose between either the CAPF allowance or the military allowance, whichever is higher. This is prima facie not fair,” countered a senior civilian bureaucrat. The military’s third demand is for restoration of weightage in pensions, which has been removed by the 7th C. The weightage in terms of years of service, because of early retirement of military officials, was removed by the 6th CPC but it was restored for JCOs and jawans in 2009 by a committee headed by the then finance minister, Pranab Mukherjee. It was further enhanced by two years by the government in August 2012.

The military also wants the disability pension to be applicable on a percentage basis as it is to civilians. This was the case so far, but the 7th CPC has recommended a slab-based system for the military. It means that while an Additional Secretary would get Rs 60,000 as disability pension, a Lt General will earn only Rs 27,000.

The fourth demand of the military is about other allowances such as the technical allowance. The memories of a mutiny in the Indian Air Force in 1996, due to vast difference in the allowances of pilots and others, are fresh in the minds of the military hierarchy. With the removal of Tier-2 of technical allowance recommended by the 7th CPC, a pilot will get Rs 25,000 as allowance while his technical counterpart will get only Rs 3,000 per month. This, the military fears, is bound to raise discontent.

The presentation by PARC earned a word of praise from the Cabinet Secretary who promised to go into the details. But the military is concerned as the pending six ‘core anomalies’ from the 6th CPC have not been resolved so far. A committee of secretaries formed in 2012 to resolve those anomalies, recommended that they be resolved by an expert body, the 7th CPC. But those anomalies in status and parities were not addressed by the 7th CPC.

The 2012 committee of secretaries was formed by the government after then defence minister, AK Antony wrote in June 2012 to the then Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, warning that “There is growing discontentment among the Defence service personnel and Ex-servicemen across all ranks, due to various anomalies in the fixation of pay and pensions. My apprehension is that unless we take some corrective action, issue may take a bad turn.”

Four years down the line, the military hierarchy now fears that the former defence minister’s words may turn out to be prophetic.

(SOURCE-INDIAN EXPRESS)

MOD FOR RETAINING HIGHER STATUS, PAY FOR ARMED FORCES - By Ajay Banerjee (Tribune News Service)

New Delhi, March 25

Tackling irksome issues as regards the 7th Central Pay Commission (CPC), the Ministry of Defence will convey to an empowered committee headed by the Cabinet Secretary that the status, pay and allowances of the armed forces be kept above all other “fighting” arms of the government.Sources said Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar told a high-level meeting at the MoD on March 22 that the stance of the ministry should be categorical on the issues of status, pay and allowances for the forces.Parrikar was in agreement with key issues raised by the three service chiefs—Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha, Admiral Robin Dhowan and General Dalbir Singh Suhag.MoD officials have been asked to prepare a formal note for the empowered committee of secretaries, led by the Cabinet Secretary, which is studying recommendations of the 7th CPC. The government is yet to announce what it has accepted or rejected. The forces cannot directly petition the empowered committee.In all, the forces have flagged 37 issues of which eight have been termed as “key-issues”, which, if not sorted out, can have an adverse impact on the morale.One of the issues was “wrong and misplaced” comparison with the Central armed police (paramilitary) forces—Central Reserve Police Forces (CRPF), Border Security Force (BSF), Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) and the Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB).The services have told the MoD that there can be no comparison with the paramilitary in terms of the mandate, duties, risks in service conditions and tasks assigned. The 7th CPC will upset laid-down seniorities and place armed forces’ allowances lower than those for paramilitary forces.The three forces—Army, Navy and Air Force—have petitioned Parrikar for the restoration of earlier status, which has been “disturbed” following recommendations of the 7th pay commission.The disability pension for the armed forces has been lowered, but it has been maintained at same levels for paramilitary forces. Parrikar has been informed that the pay panel has disturbed parity between Lt-Colonels and Commandants of the paramilitary forces.The issue of allowances was discussed at the meeting and the much-quoted example of how Guwahati will be a “tougher” posting than serving on the forbidding Siachen Glacier, was brought out.The CPC has suggested Rs 31,500 per month for officers and Rs 21,000 per month for jawans as allowance to compensate them for the “hardship” faced at Siachen. However, once the pay commission’s new salary slabs come into place, the tough area allowance (TRA), which is about 33 per cent of the basic salary, in civilian services works out to be in excess of Rs 55,000 for IPS and IAS officers and Rs 30,000 for others posted in areas such as Guwahati.

ROW OVER 7TH PAY PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS

• The Army, Navy and Air Force have claimed that the 7th pay panel will bring armed forces’ allowances lower than those for paramilitary forces
• The forces have flagged 37 issues of which eight have been termed as “key-issues”, which, if not sorted out, can have an adverse impact on the morale of the forces

(Source- Sanjha Morcha blog)