Disclaimer

Monday, January 31, 2011

ONE-RANK-ONE-PENSION - OROP

by Maj Gen (Retd) Surjit Singh
.

‘Equal Pay for Equal Work’ is a directive principle of the State policy in our Constitution. The right to equal pension at each rank for the same length of  service derives from the same tenet.
.
Summary
.
"One Rank One Pension" ( OROP ) is an emotive issue. When two soldiers of the same rank and with equal length of service find that they are in receipt of different pensions, just because they retired on different dates, they are unable to reconcile with the situation. The feeling of hurt is not confined to lower ranks alone. Even general officers whose pension was depressed by the Fifth Pay Commission, felt so aggrieved that they took the matter to the court to seek justice, and their case is still pending in the Supreme Court. OROP is one of the few pending grievances of our veterans. No responsible person has ever said that the demand is either unjustified or unreasonable. The benefit of this dispensation will go to veterans who are really old, and needy. Grant of OROP will instill a sense of fairness and equity amongst the old soldiers, since ideally, the pay and pensions of soldiers should be regulated through simple charts wherein the entitlement of a soldier or a veteran is governed by only two basic factors : his rank and the length of service.
.
The financial effect of OROP was officially estimated at Rs 600 crores per annum in 2004, as per the records of a parliamentary committee which examined the issue. This figure would have increased due to inflation during the last four years.

No civilian organization has, till this day, sought the equivalent of OROP. Further, when a ‘One Time Increase’ was granted to the soldiers in 1992 there was no reaction from the civilian pensioners. Hence, there need be no reservations about the apprehension of similar demands from civilian pensioners.

OROP has been the stated policy of all mainstream political parties. It was even there in the President's opening address to Parliament in 2004. That makes it the declared policy of the government, not just of a political party. The Pay Commission is a creature of the government and works in close co-ordination with the Finance ministry. Therefore, the report of the 6th PC reneges on the declared guiding principle of the government. The call is for the government to honour its promise. NOW is the ideal time to institute this reform, since the report of the Pay Commission is in the process of being implemented.
.
Background
.
The pension system for the military underwent rapid changes during the first three decades after our independence. And for some reason or the other, the reforms were invariably made effective prospectively, without extending the new benefits to the past pensioners. In many cases, retirees were given options to choose from. Consequently, by 1985, there were fourteen categories of pensioners. Quite naturally, the veterans sought rationalization of the system. The quest for one-rank-one-pension (OROP) began during the early eighties. A high level committee, headed by Shri KP Singh Deo was formed to examine all issues related with the problems of ex-servicemen, and this was one of the main concerns. The committee identified over sixty problem areas, most of which were resolved, but the OROP lingered on. There after, this quagmire has been examined by three pay commissions and several parliamentary committees. It has continued to bug successive governments and has now become a ‘war cry’ of our ex-servicemen. During the run up to the elections for the current Lok Sabha, all major parties promised to resolve this issue. It even figured in the President’s address to the Opening Session of Parliament, thus making it government policy.
.
However, to our dismay, the 6th PC has ignored the issue. The Nature of the Proposed Reform At the outset, it must be understood quite clearly that OROP implies the grant of equal pension to soldiers of a particular rank, who have rendered the same length of service, irrespective of their date of retirement. It will thus remove the sense of injustice which the earlier retirees experience, when they find that their pension is less than that of some one who was their equal in service. In a majority of cases, the actual difference is no more than ten or fifteen percent, but the heartburn which that small amount of money causes has resulted in  representations, petitions and even court cases. Many old soldiers feel that the government is insensitive to their just and legitimate plea.
.
Present Position of the Case
.
There are two reasons for the successive governments failing to resolve this issue so far. One, that the State could not bear the financial burden of admitting OROP, and two, because there was always a lurking fear that a similar demand could come from civilian pensioners, and the fiscal effect of granting this concession to all central and state pensioners would be exorbitant. However, within the constraints of the resources, a ‘One Time Increase’ was granted by the Congress government in 1992 and later the Fifth Pay Commission amalgamated all pre-1996 pensioners into just one category. Consequently, we now have only two types of pensioners: the pre-1996 pensioners and the post ’96 retirees. For complete resolution of the problem a parliamentary committee headed by Shri Madan Lal Khurana was constituted. The record of their deliberations reveals that this committee also ran into the same imbroglio. Mercifully, the financial effect estimated by the government on 1.4.2004 was a modest figure of Rs 600 crores. But if they chose to admit arrears wef 1996, it would cost an additional out go of Rs 4000 crores.
.
Meanwhile, the report of the Sixth Pay Commission has come in, and after taking into account all factors, the current estimate of the price tag on this reform may have risen to a proportionately higher figure. But the magnitude of the financial effect would be of the same order. The veterans are agitated at the dismissal of their demand for OROP by the Pay Commission and have threatened to demonstrate and even resort to a hunger strike.
.
Fear of a Possible Demand Being Raised by Civilian Pensioners
.
Relating civilian pensioners with veteran soldiers is like comparing chalk with cheese. The two categories of personnel are so different that using this as an argument is actually a red herring. This ghost has been haunting the governments in power for over two decades and preventing them from implementing a straight forward reform. Given below is a list of the major factors which distinguish soldiers from the civilians :
.
First and foremost, soldiers are the only people who have “ranks”, which conform to internationally accepted norms. Thus, a Battalion is commanded by a Colonel and the boss of a ship is a Captain, the world over. On the other hand, the civilian grades are municipal ‘designations’ which have no formal sanctity. Even a miniscule organization can have a ‘Director’ and he can designate his assistants as ‘general managers’ or ‘secretaries’. Thus, the very basis of OROP is inapplicable in their case.
.
While all civilians retire at sixty years of age, the length of service of soldiers is related with the rank attained. A very large number of combat soldiers are sent home in their mid-thirties, to keep the army young. Soldiers are the only government servants who are exposed to war risk, and disabilities acquired during training. Consequently, they have different types of pensions. Their case merits examination on a different plane.
.
Major changes in the pension structure occur whenever a Pay Commission report is implemented. The civilians retire at sixty, and therefore, they rarely live past one such major reform. Soldiers retire at forty, and they sometimes see through three or even four Pay Commissions. This is one more reason to review their pensions more rationally.
.
It needs to be noted, that no civilian organization has, till this day, sought the equivalent of OROP. Further, when a ‘One Time Increase’ was granted to the soldiers, in 1992, there was no reaction from the civilian pensioners.
.
Finally, it needs to be noted, that the existing pension structure of the armed forces is different from the civilians. For the military, (a) pensions of the PBOR are calculated on the basis of the ‘top of the scale’ ; (b) There is a system of ‘weightages’ to compensate for truncated service and (c) the percentage of pension that can be commuted is higher than that which is admissible to the civilians.
.
Till date no civilian service has sought parity with the soldiers on these counts.
.
The Need to Act Immediately The report of the Sixth Central Pay Commission is currently being examined by the government. The pay structure may undergo a radical change. Since pensions derive from the pay scales, it is imperative that the OROP be implemented at this stage. In fact, it is very important that these two actions be initiated simultaneously.

Government should constitute a body similar to the ‘Armed Forces Pay Review Boards’ (AFPRB) that are created in several countries. It also needs to be noted that in most countries, the review of the salary structure of the soldiers is carried out by separate bodies, and they invariably have suitable representation from amongst serving as well as retired soldiers.
.
The Summing Up
.
The OROP is an emotive issue. When two soldiers of the same rank and with equal length of service find that they are in receipt of different pensions, just because they retired on different dates, they are unable to reconcile with the situation. The feeling of hurt is not confined to lower ranks alone. Even general officers whose pension was depressed by the Fifth Pay Commission, felt so aggrieved that they took the matter to the court to seek justice, and their case is still pending in the Supreme Court. One Rank One Pension is one of the few pending grievances of our veterans. No responsible person has ever said that the demand is either unjustified or unreasonable. The benefit of this dispensation will go to veterans who are really old, and needy. The sixth Pay Commission has recommended a special ‘add on’ largesse for pensioners who are over eighty years old. Whether the government will be able to grant that remains to be seen. Grant of OROP will instill a sense of fairness and equity amongst the old soldiers.
.
Ideally, the pay and pensions of soldiers should be regulated through simple charts wherein the entitlement of a soldier or a veteran is governed by only two prime factors: his rank and the length of service.
.
Acknowledgements
.
I wish to place on record, the inspiration provided by Sh KP Singh Deo and Admiral RH Tahiliani for undertaking the investigation effort on the above subject. My life long friends, Joseph Thomas and Raj Kadyan were kind enough to go through the rough draft and offer critical comments.

7 comments:

  1. Comments by Krishan Lal Jaspal in two parts (Part -1)

    Endeavors have brought partial results. In this context I submit As per budget speech of Fin Min, the OROP is approved for few ex-men. All Officers are debarred. In fact it is not understood whom to believe. The Fin min says some thing else where as def min says some thing else. If the def min is right the govt needs to be congratulated for fulfilling its promise and long pending demand of def pensioners but if fin min is to be believed it is shame and disgrace to the concerned auth who drafted and approved OROP. It is shame for govt. for such action. The debarred def pensioners wish to know: Are the debarred pensioners are not the ex-men, did they not serve the nation? Did they not fight and many of them give their lives while fighting against external and internal enemies, whose families and children suffered? Could the def pensioners served or fought the wars without officers/can it be ever possible in future? Were the deprived def pensioners not sincere honest loyal faithful obedient dutiful submissive docile tractable and disciplined soldiers? If the fin Min is right, the following is submitted by: Lt. Col. (Retd.) K L Jaspal, H. No. 28, Sector 21-B, Faridabad, Haryana. Pin-121001. Mobile Phone No. 09471889885

    SUBJECT: DIVIDING THE DEFENSE PENSIONERS AND CREATING DISCRIMINATION IN APPROVING ONE RANK AND ONE PENSION FOR THEM AND BY INCARPORATITING A CLAUSE OF PRO RATA OF 33YEARS FOR CALCULATING PENSION OF PRE-2006 PENSIONERS.

    PROLOGUE. 1. In accordance with the contents of Article 14, this piece of writing is to throw light on similarly circumstanced country men who cannot be and must not be arbitrarily divided or categorized or classified by the state for debarring some of them from the benefits whenever announced by the Govt. Efforts are made to explain that already existing classifications/categories of pensioners are founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes pensioners that are grouped together. Whenever and wherever, the state has ever made any deceptive efforts to further classify the pensioners for its own financial or any other interest, but that was against pensioners in financial or in any other manners, it was checked by the Law of the Land. Many of the courts of the country including the Apex court of India always stood by Article 14, which forbade the Govt. from doing so. Article 14 is therefore specifically incorporated in the constitution to ensure fairness and equality of treatment to all the countrymen of the nation, so that all of them are treated alike both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed by the state or any of the state’s authorities.
    A BRIEF SUMMARY OF ARTICLE 14. 2. Article 14 of the constitution strikes at arbitrariness of the State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment to all the country men of India. This article is attracted where equals are treated differently without any reasonable basis. The principle making the guarantee compulsory and obligatory is that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. Equal laws would have to be applied to all the persons happened to be in the same situation and there should be no discrimination between one class of persons from the other classes of similar persons as regards the subject-matter of the legislation, their position is substantially the same. 3. The Article 14 further explicitly and unambiguously forbids class division by the state. This Article, unequivocally explains that the classification already made is founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those that are left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question.

    by Krishan Lal Jaspal
    (Part -2 ) follows

    ReplyDelete
  2. Krishan Lal Jaspal (Part -2)

    ENTITLEMENT OF PENSION. 4. It is well known that the pension is a right and not a bounty or gratuitous benefit. The payment of pension does not depend upon the discretion of the Government alone but it is governed as per the constitution of the nation and by the rules framed by the parliament. Thus, a government servant coming within the preview of those rules is entitled to claim the pension.
    CLASSIFICATIONS OF DEFENSE SERVICE PENSIONERS CARRIED OUT BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DISREGARDING AND DISRESPECTING THE CONTENTENTS AND SPIRIT OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WHICH FORBIDS FOR DOING SO. 5. Since inception of defense forces, the defense pensioners have just in one class; irrespective of ranks they wear i.e. retired defense personnel called ex-servicemen or defense pensioners. Whenever the pensionary benefits were ever enhanced by the Govt., these have been made applicable to all the pensioners, irrespective of their dates of retirements or ranks they wore. 6. Factually, Just to partially approving the concept of OROP and denying the benefit to a large number of defense pensioners
    COMMENTS ON BLOGS. 1. I may mention that it is well known to all that the service conditions of the defense personnel are highly precarious, rough, tough, hard, grueling, arduous, ruthless, strenuous, severe, brutal, vigorous, rigorous, exhausting, backbreaking, troublesome, horrifying, scary, petrifying, risky, terrifying, frightening, harsh, perilous, death-defying, dangerous, hard-hitting, insecure, hazardous, treacherous, terrorizing, and unsafe. It is due to these service conditions, the real talents do not come forward to join the defense services and the present huge deficiency which is prevailing since decades, will never be made up and the present huge deficiency will never be made up unless necessary steps to give them attractive pay, allowances, perks and benefits in various forms are taken during their service as well as after retirement. 2. What are the places where forces are not deployed? They are deployed, not against the foreign enemies alone, but they are utilized against the enemies within the country, counter insurgencies, against militants, terrorists and remain stand-to for 24 hours. They are deployed even during all the natural calamities. The entire nations recognize the work and services of defense forces accept a few of the anti-nationalist, who may keep casting aspersion against defense forces and its officers.

    by Krishan Lal Jaspal
    Part – 3 (follows)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Krishan Lal Jaspal (Part – 3)

    3. Further, it is brought out that in addition to unfavourable service conditions of defense personnel; a wide disparity exists between civil services officers and defense services officers. In fact, it is due to this disparity also, the real talents do not come forward. This disparity can only be removed by giving them the higher pay to defense officers and PBOR commensurately to their counterparts and prevailing service conditions. 4. It may be noted that the defense services persons, while putting across their version on pay parities, they are not against the IAS officers, Para Military Services officers or any one else. Rather, they are happy to note that all these officers have been given their due. 5. Should all these civ officers must not realize as to why the defense persons should not be given their due and their status should not be maintained. It seems, all these officers are happy, only if the defense services are completely, ignored and neglected. Is it their intelligence to use abusive language for the Chiefs and all defense officers? In fact, their blogs must not be published. Wherever, it is done, these must be deleted. 6. It is a fact that our is a democratic county and every one has right his views, no one has any right to use filthy language against any one or demean any one or cast idiotic aspersions against any one. It seems, anyone doing so, is not only the enemy of defense forces, rather, they are the enemies of the nation/country, who are trying to demoralize the forces. I do not think any one in such persons’ generations has ever thought of joining the forces nor will they ever do. It gives impression as if such persons do not need pay; presumably, they could have amassed unaccountable wealth, the means for which could be best known to them. 7. It is felt, any one writes such comments against defense forces persons are the traitors and wants the defense forces to remain demoralized thus, weaken the nation. Rather such comments are against the national security and such persons must be brought to book.

    by Krishan Lal Jaspal
    Concluded)

    ReplyDelete
  4. I am Gp Capt (Retd) A Chaudhuri, VSM. What you seem to miss out is the fact that Army Commanders and Chiefs have been given OROP even by the sixth Pay Commission, that too without even asking for the same and even before the so-called protests by the Chiefs of Staff Committee on the pay of Lt Cols and other related issues (an issue still unresolved). It is only those who could not, or voluntarily did not, make to these ranks (ie Army Commanders and Chiefs and their equivalents in Navy & Air Force)who only are now at the receiving end of the stick.It is quite unlikely that these "leaders of the Armed Forces" will ever fight sincerely for the cause of those who are not so privileged. After all, the "divide & Rule" policy thst the Britishers invented and post-independence politicians of every hue used so effectively so far, could not be without its merits. This is particularly relevant in view of rhe mideocre quality of leaders who are thrown up to hold these exhalted Ranks for the last about a decade+. But that is a different subject. Incidentally, have you noticed that even under the present dispensation an officer of lesser rank (than Army Commander and so forth), who retired pre- 1996 will get the same pension after the Seventh Pay Commission (likely to be effecive from 2016), as those of equivalent rank retirees post 2006 and pre-2016? So, have you noticed that OROP implementation is in effect lagging by one pay commission, (approximately 10 years). This is the core issue because it entails huge losses to the Armed Force retirees and their families and cannot be justified except by "Brute Force" and or some red herrings. Why can't the Govt be made to accecpt now what it is going to do anyway after 10 years? No amount of Dharnas and "safe custody of medals to the Supreme Commander" will ever have any effect. What we need is a few parliamentary seats representing the whole lot of serving and retired defence personnel and their families irrespective of the States to which they belong, so that required political pressures can be exerted. We may even press for a Defence Minister ex-Defence Services, who can be expected at least some rudimentary first-hand knowhow as to how the defence forces work. But these being the most difficult to achive, the present writer and his ilk are only repeating the obvious, informative though these are to those who never had anythind to do with the Defence Forces. Do they think it will achieve the OROP goal in this manner, sycophancy in the form of "acknowledgemen" ; apart? I am stressed that even a Major General (Retd) is incapable today to write a few lines so obvious without owing "acknowledgements". Lastly, unlike the defence forces, there is no Service in which an employee is obliged to even give his/her life up at the Command of his Superior.No Civilian organisation with or without Unions can claim to have such time tested ethics. So the least that we can do is to to ask them to enbress the Army Acr or its equivalents if at all they ask for similar dispensations. I am the sole author of the aforesaid and I owe no "acknowledgements" to any officer senior to me, whether living or dead.

    Hope I am not misunderstood.

    Amitava_Chaudhuri4353

    ReplyDelete
  5. In two Parts (Part - 1)

    I am Ex-Havildar M.Nageswara Rao, M.Com., LLB., LL.M., M.B.A., CAIIB.,from Corps signals, 1960 to 1976, after retirement/transferred to discharge est. I passed Probationary officers exam conducted by PNB, but could not be selected in viva-voice due to overage(35) as i am Not a Commissioned Officer, I also appeared for the post of DSP-II by A.P.PSC, there also i was rejected for the same reason. subsequently i joined in one of the Nationalised banks, though i am selected for clerical post only. within 3 years on merit basis i am selected as an officer. worked as a general branch manager, Manager Law, retired U/VRS2000, selected by govt of A.P. as a Member to District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, deputed for more than 3 Forum to clear the backlog cases, as a record I passed 80 to 120 Judgments/Orders in a Month. when a Hon'ble Justice of Supreme court held a conference for thr Consumers at Hyderabad, the Member from Tele Regulatory Authy is Lt-Gen Saigal from the same corps i.e. Corps of signal inquiring how??/==sharing the resolutions== retired, practicing as an Advocate. Now coming to the actual issue Point for discussion on OROP. I am along with my colleagues rather EC Members where I am the All India President to 'All India Ex-Servicemen Bank employees Federation' (Regd) under Trade Union Act,1926 of its first General Secretary late Sri Ashok Arora, Paghwara, President late Sri Surjit Singh, Delhi etc., I am also the General Secretary to A.P.State and also I am the vice-chairman(Central) and A.P.State General secretary to 'National Ex-servicemen Co-ordination Committee' Regd U/Societies Registration Act,1860. since for the last 30 years i am in the field of ESM welfare movements, holding meetings, seminars, conferences, general body meetings, dharnas, hunger strikes, protests, resentments, etc., etc., especially either regard to un-employment in ESM category, not treating us at pat with SC/ST reserved category, reservations in all aspects, not filling them with backlog as it is done to the SC/ST, non-availability of Monitoring authority like SC/ST, OROP, cancellation of payment of DA/DR on defence Pension to the re-employed ESM, non-eligibility of Double Family/second Family Pension on the demise of the re-employed ESM to his widow, primarily i am protesting giving nomenclature as Double Family/second Family Pension as if we are maintaining two families which wrong signals/notions in the minds of the Public, as i suggested that it should be 'Full Family Pension".

    Ex-Havildar M.Nageswara Rao,

    Contd Part - 2

    ReplyDelete
  6. Part - 2

    I personally met the President of India led by 15 delegates/EC Members when she visited Hyderabad/Secunderabad, on 10-01-2009 submitted 8 pages Memorandum covering 18 issues including OROP and Double Family/second Family Pension, when i brought to her notice about the maintenance of families, she also felt very sorry, she has immediately initiated action by writing to the cabinet secretary for taking appropriate action on all the issues under intimation to them as well as to me as a petitioner. when we submitted our demand and moving all the political bosses especially from BJP and left parties in 1990's, sir, very sorry to say that u people higher ranks sitting in AC closed doors at AHQ/NHQ/AFHQs opposed our plea for grant of OROP, but now strangely and surprisingly, singing the same song also, Sir, the Kings/Rajas in the Forces, we afraid lot. gone to the extent to form number of ESM welfare organisation but comprising of all ORs sorry PBORs. sorry sir, to say that please, show us is there any combined personnel union there like u commissioned officers forming with ORs, where to show IAS, IPS, IFS, IRS etc., etc., even in banks, i.e the officers never mingled with the subordinate staff, like here is also the same, but the tradition in your officers case completely crossed, with the sole reason, u people want to utilise the services of the ORs, see the live example of Ex-Service League, 95% of the members from Officer cadre, and your organisation also floated by your honor enrolling the ORs, of course, not ot speak about the estimation/calibre/thinking power of ORs, they are always at your ....Services and Salutes even off the uniform. discouraged our movement/opposed our demand, blocked our protests. now we are very happy to see the results, what exactly i represented to the president madam, she has studied in depth of the matter and appropriate orders passed with regard to OROP. there may be lot of mistakes taken place as i am in bit of .... typed over the internet itself. thanking u sir for giving this opportunity to express my view very briefly.

    The actual fact i like to bring to your kind notice that as i am referring 'Ex-Service League' comprised by all the Officers(rather from Military) gone to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1991 itself vide WP(Civ) Nos.13550-55 referring and basing on the judgment given in the case of 'Nakara' vs UOI, but could not succeed and their petition was dismissed as the same was not efficiently argued with proper presentations, citations, precedents, etc. thus they gave a much chance to the Govt whenever we represent they say that see the SC's judgment and 'yeah' u people gone to the court, that ends your demand. of course, the Hon'ble SC stated that it is the Govt to take decision on the matter. regarding salaries of the armed Forces Personnel, as one of our predecessor rightly pointed out that their (higher ups/ranks) pay band more than expectedly enhanced, because, first and foremost this time very daringly the Navy Chief Mehta saheb represented to their cadre, and results also very fruitful. thirdly, one of the higher ranked commissioned officer while participating in one of meetings at Bangalore, suggesting, as reported in the press, all the sub-committees shall be headed by a higher ranked officer ???? why Sir, now a days there is dearth of intellectuals/qualified in the ORs category, it should always be remembered.

    With regards,

    Ex-Havildar M.Nageswara Rao,
    Concluded

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dear nageswara rao,
    The comments by you is an extra ordinary one.These words were in all the minds of pbor's.I appreciate your guts and frankness.Any how i am ex jwo.jayaraman,from I A F and re-employed in INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK and retired on 31/05/2007.Can u please tell me regarding the dual family pension's latest position.my mob no,09080803644,land line 04312730195.e-mil id jayaramanhoney@yahho.co.in THANK U.

    ReplyDelete