OROP - VIEWS OF MAJ GEN RN RADHAKRISHNAN, VETERAN ON NDTV DEBATE : 2100 Hrs ON 03-09-2015

Dear Veteran Collegues,

The NDTV debate anchored by Vihsnu Som with the participation of Lt Gen SK Bhari, Maj Gen Sabir Singh, Shri Samit Patra, Spokesperson BJP, Shri Prasad the former Secretary and Shri Sanjay Jha, the Congress Spokesperson at the prime time of Sep 03, 2015, was pathetic eyewash on the part of the media. The reasons are:

a.  The general officers drove home two valid points. If the definition of OROP has been accepted by the PM and the Government is it not their responsibility to implement it in letter and spirit? If answer is yes, then there is absolutely no need to raise the question of rationalization in five years or three years? It is irrelevant. Obviously continuous monitoring is required, to ensure that OROP is honored at any time and at every time. The Government has to find the ways and means. This issue was not deliberated upon well by the political bigwigs and the Bureaucrat.

b.  Shri Samit Patra kept repeating again and again that there are some gaps without ever once explaining what were those gaps and what could possibly be the problem in bridging those gaps.

c.  A point was made that 80 crores per annum (a pittance) might only be the finance required to ensure that the OROP is maintained every year. BJP spokesperson talked irrelevantly of borrowing without restrain, at that juncture.

d. Gen Bhari brought out very lucidly that when rules were made such that every IAS officer earns the pension of additional secretary, the question of financial burden was not considered and when OROP is being talked about the issue becomes very serious, to the extent money needs to be borrowed.

e.  Mr Prasad went at a tangent stating with audacity that he would like to correct the General on that count. There exists definite promotion procedure in the IAS cadre, not realizing that his assertion is quite irrelevant to the issue of NFUG that enables almost every IAS officer to retire with the pension of Additional secretary.

f.   Som, the anchor now switches his role to that of mediator on behalf of the Government and asks Gen Satbir as to why veterans should not agree to rationalization every three years.

I want to make it crystal clear. Veterans want only OROP as defined by the Petition Committee. We are not concerned if it has to be done by incrementing or otherwise. Veterans have not demanded 3% annual increment. 

Whichever may be the base year for initial pension fixation on the principle of OROP, the initially fixed pension would fall short of the pension of veterans retiring in the subsequent years in the same rank and equal length of service, because of the increment they would get in the subsequent years. 

That increment happens to be 3% of the basic pay plus grade pay per year as per prevalent rules. Thus, if OROP has to be ensured the pension also needs to be rationalized to that extent. The process does not call for any review and needs just a minor up-gradation of the computer program that controls pension dispersal – a onetime technical exercise.

Now the questions that need to be raised are:

a. Is it an issue of ego of some that inhibits the implementation of OROP?

b. Is it financial constraint that inhibits the implementation of OROP?

c. Is it the administrative constraint that inhibits the implementation of OROP?

d. Is it ethical constraint that inhibits the implementation of OROP?

In my considered opinion the answer is simple YES to the question at (a) above and a resounding NO to the other questions. 

If the PM succumbs to the ego of the FM, then a order will be out based on rationalization every three years, which order will be “pushed down our throat as had been the practice for long” to put it in the candid words of Gen Bahri in the debate.

Therefore, I would, now, recommend that we should stick to OROP in its true spirit and that any concession to the Government is certainly not needed. 

The concession neither is needed nor will it be appreciated by the Government. 

This, I am stating now, though a few days back I suggested that we may concede to review every two years.

Regards 

Maj Gen RN Radhakrishnan, Veteran

(Source - Via Gp E-mail from Colonel  N K Balakrishnan Veteran)( Retd )