1 The
IESM, Panchkula extends a hearty welcome to Honourable Justice L Narasimha
Reddy to Chandimandir, and is highly appreciative of his efforts to connect
with the veterans and understands the OROP issues firsthand.
2 The
first as the most important issue the veterans face is the attempt at dilution
of the definition of OROP that already been accepted by the Parliament and the
Govt. Lately, even the Union Finance Minister Shri Arun Jaitely has tried to
sow doubt on the definition of the OROP. The veterans have had to struggle for
40 long years after the historic injustice perpetrated on the veterans as a
result the Third Pay Commission (1976) whereby, pension of the military personnel
was reduced for earlier 70 percent to 50 percent, and those from the civil side
raised from 33 percent to 50 percent without any attendant mitigating measures,
or safety basket for the soldiery. Even, the OROP scheme only partially
mitigates the soldiers’ troubles. There is hardly any comparison between 80
percent of soldiery being sent home at 40 to 42 yrs age, admittedly with 50
percent pension (under OROP scheme) as
compared to the civil, and police side going on pension after 60 yrs with 50
percent. The OROP is hardly the largesse it is being made to sound.
Definition
of OROP
3 One
Rank One Pension (OROP) implies that uniform pension be paid to the armed forces
personnel retiring in the same rank with same length of service irrespective of
their date of retirement and any future enhancements to be automatically passed
on to the past pensioners.
4 Anomalies in the Govt. Order of November
2015.
a)
Pension Equalisation
Every Five Years. Pension equalisation
every five years cannot be termed as OROP. Pensions of the past pensioners and
those retiring currently would never be equal destroying the very concept of
OROP. Besides, many juniors would get more pension than seniors. It has been
put out that the exercise is very difficult for the accountants. Firstly, if
mean of maxima and minima of pensions can be worked out for 30 Lacs pensioners,
there is no reason that this cannot be resolved is this computers age.
Secondly, just because there is a degree of difficulty in doing something
cannot be reason enough for not doing the right act.
b)
Payment of OROP wef
July 1, 2014. OROP was approved in the Budget
2014. As per the norms anything approved in the budget is applicable from April
1 that year. Govt. has issued orders for application of OROP from July 1, 2014.
The veterans have effectively lost three months of benefit without any fault.
c)
Fixation of OROP wef
Calendar Year 2013. Fixation of OROP wef
calendar 2013 would result in past pensioners getting one increment less than
those retiring in 2014. This should be corrected to 2014, the year in which the
OROP order became effective.
d)
Fixation of Pension
as Mean of Maximum and Minimum. Besides increasing the work load of the
paying authorities enormously (of comparing approximately 30 Lacs accounts),
there is the question of probity, of checking, and transparency of the method
used in order to satisfy the clientele. Military pensions have always had some
weightage of service added for pension purpose to compensate for early
retirement. Traditionally, pensions of Junior Commissioned Officers (JCOs) and
Other Ranks (OR) have been worked on the basis of maximum rates. Why should the
Govt. now withhold this little munificence
instead of improving upon the benefits?
5 Anomalies Arising of Implementation of
OROP Tables of Feb 4, 2016.
a)
Lt Col (Selection
Grade) Pension. Before 1985, army units of
Battalion size were commanded by Lt Col (SG). Later, the appointment was made
tenable by a Colonel. The reality is that still in the major armies of the
world like the United States, and Australia, battalion size units are being
commanded by Lt Cols. In India, all Lt Col (SG) are being treated at par with
Lt Col (TS) for pension whereas Lt Col (Time Scale) was basically performing
the job of a Major. To meet the ends of
justice, Lt Col (SG) need to be granted the pension of Colonel.
b)
Weightage for
Calculation Pension. Weightage element
has been an inbuilt factor to compensate the armed forces personnel who are
subjected to compulsory retirement to keep the forces young in the interest of
national security. Till December 31, 2005, certain weightage was given to
services for calculating pension benefits. A Lt Col (SG) was given weight
benefit of seven years, and a Lt Col (TS) five years. After implementation of
the Sixth Pay Commission wef from January 1, 2006, wherein the qualifying
service for full pensions for officers was reduced to 20 years, the weightage
system was removed for officers. Whereas, the revised rule has benefited the
officers on the civil side wanting to go out of service earlier at own request,
there is no commensurate advantage to the armed forces officers and men who are
compulsorily retired at comparatively younger age in national interest. Lt Col
rank officers are as it is retired at 54 Yrs. The protection of weightage and a
little extra pension has been taken away from them. There is need to restore
the weightage system to the pensions of retiring service personnel. Besides,
the manner of calculation of pension after providing weights needs to be made
in consultation with affected parties.
c)
Major’s Pension.
Currently, no one would go on pension as Major. Officers retired as Major after
01-01-1996 having 21 yrs service have been allowed to earn the pension of Lt
Col (TS) There are a few Majors of pre Jan 1, 1996 vintage who have not been
considered for this up- gradation. It is recommended that the rule be applied evenly
to all cases.
d)
Benefit Under MACP.
It is strongly recommended that MACP benefits should to be made to all past
pensioners so as not to create fresh grievances just because a new rule
regarding MACP has been introduced. The earlier pensioners were basically
performing the same job.
e)
Pension Tables Beyond
33 Yrs. It is learnt that the tables beyond
33 yrs are being formulated on the civil side. The defence forces must be
treated at par.
f)
OROP for Regular
Capt/Lt vs. Hony Capt/Lt. Theoretically, a
regular Capt would earn a pension of Rs. 17,010.00 after 28 yrs and a Lt Rs
16,090.00. Same is the pension of Hony Capt/Lt at 28 yrs. In practice, it is
most unlikely that any regular officer would retire as Capt/Lt. No change is
suggested to the existing scale.
g)
OROP for Invalided
out, war injury and liberalized family pensioners.
Whatever be the formula adopted, the interests of these categories must be full
in concordance with their benefits mandated earlier.
h)
Broad-banding of
disability benefit under OROP. As per a
December10, 2015 judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court, broad-banding of
disability pension benefits has been awarded to 900 litigants. The policy needs
to be applied equally to all such cases to avoid unnecessary litigation and
heartburn since the highest court in the country had already found merit in the
submissions to it.
i)
Pension of Y Gp Hony
Nk and Hony Hav. The Pension of Hony Nk is same
as that of a Sepoy and that of a Hony Hav same as that of a Nk. Some incentive
needs to be worked into it.
Preparation
of OROP Pension Tables
6 Large
area of the OROP table requires reworking after detailed discussion with the
stake holders. For example, for a Sepoy
of Y Gp pension remains fixed at Rs. 6,665.00 from 12.5 yrs to 17 yrs, a good
5.5 yrs without any progress. Similarly, a Major’s pension remains static at
Rs. 21,530.00 from 13 yrs to 20 yrs.
Conclusion
7 It
hardly needs reiteration that retiring soldiery young is a national compulsion,
not an individual desire, or requirement. It is important that soldiers be
compensated adequately. Even the OROP is no largesse. An army jawan going home
at 40 to 42 yrs loses almost 55 Lacs in his lifetime earnings as compared to a
police constable retiring at 60 yrs after having enjoyed multiple increments,
rank enhancements, and increased pay having enjoyed the munificence of two more
pay commissions. Since armed forces are a rank based hierarchical organization,
this loss is suffered all way up even by officer who also retire earlier based
on their rank.
8
IESM, Panchkula has deliberated on the OROP issue. Indeed IESM are grateful to
the Govt. for agreeing to the OROP after a long struggle and hiatus. However,
the given OROP is truncated, and hope the authorities would consider their
submissions in a spirit of magnanimity.
Brig Kiran Krishan, SM (Retd.)
Convener, IESM, Panchkula
August 17, 2016
(Source- Via e-mail from Wg Cdr CK Sharma (Retd)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteKindly refer Table No 9 of circular 555(OROP). The reasons as why TA personnel get more pension than Regular is not understood. If this case fit to be treated as anomalies, and left out mentioning in the blog is very surprising.
ReplyDeleteThe OROP Scales for the MNS Officers are incomplete where in the veterans of Major rank were left out. Again, besides settling other anomalies, Justice Reddy must set right and impress upon the government the correct and universally accepted definition of the OROP as agreed by both the houses of the Parliament.
ReplyDeleteSir, the efforts put in in order to streamline OROP is highly appreciable. It is further stated that para 05 (d) may be given due priority.
ReplyDeleteThe part which says "all Lt Col (SG) are being treated at par with Lt Col (TS) for pension whereas Lt Col (Time Scale) was basically performing the job of a Major. To meet the ends of justice, Lt Col (SG) need to be granted the pension of Colonel," is so unconvincing even to veterans themselves that it is surprising the people who thought up such ideas did not bother to check with people with brains who can actually think.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who has served as an Officer in the Army knows that after December 2004, there is no Lt Col(TS) and Lt Col itself being a non-select promotion after that date, the pay-band and rates of pension are one and the same after 2006. Instead, here we have people talking of 1985, US Army and Battalion commanders.
A person does not have to be an Einsteins to think of approaching Army HQs to reduce service required for getting Col(TS) rank to 21 or 22 years so all previous Lt Cols would be eligible for the pension of a Col(TS) of equal service on basis of time served for equal pension in time-bound ranks.
I came to this blog from this tweet.
ReplyDeleteIn fact all representations on OROP anomalies should have less of the us vs them approach.
Anomalies affecting older Wg Cdr equivalent pensioners need to be viewed from different angles as I have tried to explain in this blog post.