Wednesday, January 14, 2015

OROP, Col Rathore’s op-ed and needless hairsplitting


While I agree with most of the points raised by veteran organisations on One Rank One Pension (OROP) and I also agree that it has been unduly delayed because of exaggerated figures and overstated fears propelled by the Defence Accounts Department, I fail to understand why Col Rajyavardhan Rathore’s recent write-up has been perceived by some as a dampener.

It was not. And actually it was reassuring.

While writing the op-ed, perhaps what he wanted to convey was the predicament that the political set-up was facing at arriving at exact figures constituting OROP for each rank. When he said that people spending different lengths of time in each rank were not getting equal pensions because of varied salaries at the time of retirement, he was not attempting to dilute the concept of OROP but only stating a fact which we need to address. For example, today, two officers of the same rank commissioned and superannuating on the same date may not be retiring with the same last drawn pay and hence not receiving exactly the same pension, and then which of the two figures would constitute OROP for past retirees is perhaps the very real question that is engaging the political executive. But this poser was also qualified by the Colonel by stating that they were committed to harmonize this situation without ‘penalizing’ anyone. This itself should be comforting that a solution is being searched for this issue and not the perpetuation of the problem. Take it on a scale of positivity and not with a pinch of salt.

The answer perhaps would be to find an agreeable figure of pension for retirees of each rank by keeping 2014 as the base year of retirement- upgrade those who are below that figure and protect those who are above that figure and then pass the said benefit to all pre-2014 retirees with a yearly review with all past retirees retiring in similar rank receiving the pension of current retirees of the same rank with same length of service. However all of this has to be done within the four corners of definition mentioned in the Parliament, without dilution.

Whatever be the outcome, whatever be the ultimate solution, in a democracy we would be free to disagree or agree with what is proposed or implemented, but my idea of putting these few words above is that I did not see anything negative or objectionable in Col Rathore’s oped, in fact, I found it desirable in light of the undue delay. I also do not blame veteran organisations in being skeptical since their cynicism is not without reason. I just request that we should not get into a hairsplitting exercise or search for negativity even where it does not live. 



  1. I am not agree with the statement of col Rathore as he is getting full service/benefit of Govt and sleeping in A/C Rooms. He does not know the actual problem of ESM. Pl he need proper guidance of actual life as esm. JAI HIND jhanda uthakar khare ho jao on 01 Feb 2015.

  2. I retired in Dec 2003 as Junior Warrant Officer from Air Force. I held the rank for just two years and my friend who retired in Jun 2003 as JWO held the rank for four years. But our Basic pension was Rs.3141. This point was there V th pay commission. It is not new. Why to rake up the issue now?

  3. Total service to be taken for pension irrespective of pay drawn. For this purpose maximum of Pay Band+GP+MSP could be taken as notional pay to arrive at pension for 33 yrs of service for both pre and post 2006 retirees. 5 yrs weightage given prior to 6th CPC to JCOs/OR should also be considered. .

  4. I agree with Major Navdeep Singh. Particularly, after watching RM Shri Parikkar's answers to Karan Thapar on "To the point", I feel there is no need to protest as of now. RM was very categorical that the 80% mentioned by him as abt the level of satisfaction and not abt pension. He also said that money is not a constraint. As such there is nothing to 'jhanda uthakar khare ho jao on 01 Feb 2015' now.