OROP
.
1. Definition. It implies relating military pensions to length of service and rank on retirement, independent of the date of retirement. Equal remuneration for equal service.
.
2. Essentially applicable to Defence Services:-
.
(a) Early Retirement
.
(i) Jawan starts retiring from 35 years of age with pittance of remuneration. Over 85 percent of Defence Personnel retire between 35 -42 years. He will live through at least 4th CPCs and suffer
.
(ii) Even officers majority of them retire between 52-54. Less than 3 percent 56 -60 years above brigadier.
.
(b) Limited Promotional Avenues. Over 80 percent retire as Sepoy and less than 3 percent officers above Brigadier.
.
(c) Stay away from families for all/most of their service life.
.
(d) 24 x 7 duty schedule.
.
(e) Face danger and death on duty bases.
.
(f) Severe hard conditions.
.
Historical Background
.
3. Long pending demand since 1983. Bureaucracy dominated Govt is known to find difficulty for every solution.
.
(a) The first CPC kept Armed Forces out of its terms of reference. The Govt recognized the distinctiveness of the Military. The rank based pensions recognised.
.
• Age of retirement of every rank as it was different for each rank.
.
• Years of service required to reach that rank.
.
• The truncated career was compensated by a financial weightage given to every rank.
.
• Two factors that determined the pension of the rank were; Age of Retirement and service required to reach that rank.
.
(b) Same system of Military Pensions was followed till the 2nd CPC. The Military Pensions were higher than the Central Government (CG) employees. The pensions were JCOs and Jawan 75 percent, officers 50 percent and civilians 33 percent of Pay.
.
(c) The 3rd CPC belied the expectations of Armed Forces Personnel. They were clubbed will be civilian employees. The financial weightage was abolished and replaced by an arbitrary weightage of years of service to compensate truncated career.
.
(d) The 3rd CPC related pensions to Last Pay Drawn (LPD) as a percentage rather than Rank. The cadre and pay structure, where in, Defence Personnel moved much more slowly to reach higher Pay Scales, mostly retiring even before they had a chance. This resulted in Military Pensions falling way behind their civilian counterparts. The net outcome was JCOs and Jawans pension brought down from 75 to 50 percent and civilian employee increased from 33 percent to 50 percent.
.
j) Upset by reaction from ESM, Govt appointed Committee under KP Singh Deo, MoS. The committee recommended that service pensions/retiring pensions should revert to Rank Based and all vintages of pensions should receive same quantum of pension. Thus, a new term was coined namely One Rank One Pension (OROP).
.
(k) The Govt accepted the 26 recommendations of the committee barring one, namely OROP which it said, it was examining for implementation. That day has not come since 1983.
.
(l) Smt. Indra Gandhi in 1983 had accepted the demand of OROP but the bureaucracy was able to stall it by not including it in the minutes of the meeting where decision was taken by PM.This was clearly stated by Comde Udhey Bhasker who was recording the minutes of that meeting. Before it could be processed in 1984, she was snatched away by destiny.
.
(m) Sh. Rajiv Gandhi in Feb 1987, promised to grant OROP but before any action was taken on this, elections were announced. He unfortunately met with a tragic end during the election period.
.
(n) Sh. VP Singh as PM had accepted the demand of OROP. When told that if OROP was granted to Defence Personnel, civilian employees will also demand the same. He is on record having said, “Let them (the civilian employees) swap places with the Military”, but before orders on OROP could be issued, his Govt fell.
.
(o) The Congress Govt in 1990 appointed a High Level Empowered Committee headed by Sh. Sharad Pawar the then RM. This committee was keen to grant OROP but the Govt did not sanction it quoting prevailing economic conditions. However, one time increase (OTI) in pension was given.
.
(p) Sh. IK Gujral as PM, accepted the demand of OROP but granted only modified parity. After protests from ESM, OROP was accepted by the PM but before it could be sanctioned, the Govt fell in Nov 1997.
.
(r) Mr. George Fernandes the then Defence Minister announced at Anandpur Sahab (Punjab) in Apr 1999 that OROP will be granted within a few days. Howerver, for some reasons, the Govt did not sanction the same.
.
(s) Madam Sonia Gandhi the Chairperson of UPA on 23 Nov 2002 at CHANDIGARH during a rally, endorsed the demand for one-rank-one-pension, which was earlier stressed upon by Punjab chief minister Captain Amarinder Singh at the North Zone Ex-servicemen rally addressed by the Congress president at the Sector 46 sports complex. She said that if her party came to power, OROP would be given. Her party came to power, but this promise remained unimplemented.
.
(t) Khurana Committee report recommended OROP in 2003. Para 99 of the Report of Standing Committee on Defence (2003) clearly states: "The Committee have been recommending grant of `One Rank One Pension' to the armed forces personnel time and again. The Committee observes that successive Governments and Pay Commissions have made improvements in the pension structure keeping in view the cost of living index. This has accentuated the disparity of pensionary benefits between pensioners of the same rank. The older pensioners who have become infirm in ability and capability and burdened with a larger social obligation receive pension calculated at the rate of pay at the time of their retirement in 1950s or 1960s or 1970s, which is quite paltry and the Dearness Relief quite inconsequential in today's context of inflation and shrinking purchasing value of money. The nation must repay its debt to those defenders of the motherland with gratitude and humility. We should, instead of, looking for precedents in this regard, create precedents for the others to emulate. Any amount paid in this regard would be a small token of our gratitude to them. The Committee, therefore, once again reiterates their earlier recommendation for providing `One Rank One Pension' to the armed forces personnel"
.
(u) All Party Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence through its Chairman Sh. Satpal Ji Maharaj on 07th May 2010 while tabling, its report in Parliament strongly recommended the grant of OROP holistically to the Defence Forces.
.
(v) Again on 27 Aug 2010 Chairman Standing Committee on Defence Sh. Satpal Ji Maharaj strongly recommended the grant of OROP (Letter attached).
.
(w) OROP is being given to President, Vice President, MPs, MLAs, Judiciary, IAS, IFS, IPS, DGPs and a few Defence officers ie Army Commanders, Vice Chiefs, Chief of the Army and their equivalents. Why is the same being denied to Armed Forces who are forced to retire at the age of 35 years onwards and are not being compensated for it? The Defence Service is unique with highest degree of difficulty as compared to any other Govt service.
.
(x) SC Judgement of 09 Sep 2009 in the case of Union of India & Maj Gen Vains and Others ruled:-
.
(i) No Defence Person Senior in rank can get less pension than his junior irrespective of the date of retirement.
.
(ii) Similarly placed Officers of the same rank are to be given the same pension irrespective of the date of retirement.
.
(y) AFT Chandigarh Judgement dated 03 Mar 2010. In the case of union of India and Maj Gen Vains and Others. The AFT ruled that the SC ruling in the case of Maj Gen Vains and others Vs Union of India dated 09 Sep 2009 pertaining to pre 1996 and post 1996 retirees be applied to the Petitioners of pre 2006 and post 2006 retirees also and the judgement be implemented in three months.
.
(z) AFT Chandigarh Judgement dated 08 Mar 2010 in the case of Union of India Vs Babu Ram Dhiman and Union of India Vs Sohan Singh The AFT has directed the Union Government:-
.
(i) That the state cannot lay down different criteria for grant of pensions to officers, JCOs and Jawans on the basis of cut off date of retirement.
.
(ii) No defence person of senior rank can draw less pension than his junior irrespective of the date of retirement.
.
(iii) All pensioners of the same rank and service irrespective of the date of retirement are entitled to the same pension.
.
(iv) The above directions be implemented within four months.
.
(aa) Representatives of all political parties have recommended OROP.
.
(ab) The Punjab Assembly has recently unanimously passed a resolution strongly recommending he OROP.
.
4. OROP issue has been raised in parliament a number of times but the Govt continues to deny it on the ground that a committee of bureaucrats had not recommended it. The Govt has not accepted the recommendations of the three. All Party Parliamentary Standing Committees on Defence which had strongly recommended the OROP but accepted the recommendation of committee of bureaucrats which did not recommend it.
.
5. The government’s stated reasons for rejecting OROP are legal, financial and administrative. If one goes by the recent castigating remarks of the apex court against the government’s treatment of soldiers and Ex Servicemen, the ‘legal’ ground seems to fall short of conviction. On the financial score, in today’s booming national economy, the relatively small sum involved in giving soldiers their legitimate due could not be considered an overbearing burden on the exchequer. The ‘administrative’ ground is too vague and obscure to lend itself to objective comment. In sum, it leaves little doubt that the government’s announced reasons are a thin veil to conceal their obduracy on the issue. The soldiers’ struggle has brought the OROP issue centre stage. It has figured in the media, the Parliament and the courts. The general public is ceased of the issue and is fully supportive. Apparently the government is boxed-in and isolated.
.
6. While hearing a related case on 15 November 2010, the apex court has asked the government to constitute an Armed Forcers Grievance Redressal Commission (AFGRC) within two months. It also named its composition; two prominent retired judges, an ex Army Chief and a retired Army Commander. Provided the government does implement the court’s instructions, the AFGRC would have certain positives. Firstly, it underscores the recognition of the soldiers’ problems at the highest level of our legal system. Secondly, inclusion of two retired senior defence officers in the proposed commission – perhaps for the first time – will lead to realistic portrayal of a soldier’s problems. However, the main drawback is that the commission does not have adjudicatory powers.
.
It can only make recommendations to the government. This would lead to the commission’s findings landing on the table of a bureaucrat for taking a final call. While it is nobody’s case that every bureaucrat is negative, the experience with respect to OROP does little to inspire confidence of the Ex Servicemen in the bureaucracy.
.
7. Major Adverse Affects/Drawbacks:-
.
(a) In comparison, the total amount drawn in terms of Pay and Pension by a solders is Rs 47.3 lacs less than his counter part in the civil by the time both reach the age of 75 yrs. Is this not a grave injustice?
.
(b) There is a large gap of Rs 11600 in pension of pre 2006 retiree Maj and Lt Col while the gap in their pay in the 5th Pay Commission was only Rs 1000/-. Similarly the pension gap between pre 2006 retiree Maj Gen and Lt Gen is Rs 9800/- while the difference in their pay prior to 2006 was only Rs 1200. Why this grave injustice?
.
(c) The 6th Pay Commission had granted three Assured Career Progressions (ACP). strangely the ACP has not been applied notionally while fixing the pensions of Pre 01 Jan 2006 retirees. Why this injustice?
.
(d) Even for Post 01 Jan 2006 retirees defence personnel, only two ACPs have been granted. Why the third has not been granted to a Sepoy who has been compulsorily retired from service after 17 years of service? Why this injustice?
.
(e) The enhancement in pension of JCOs/ORs is not One Rank One Pension (OROP). 13 years old pension anomaly had been removed. Even now there is a large gap in pension between the Pre and Post 2006 retirees ie ‘Y’ Group Sepoy with 17 yrs of service will get Rs 2958 less without the DA and Rs 3994 less with DA.
.
8. The Parliament is Supreme in our democracy. The Defence Forces are under the Civilian Control which means under the elected representatives of the people. In the case of OROP, almost all the Prime Ministers, the Defence ministers, the empowered Committees of Ministers, all Party Parliamentary Committees on Defence and representatives of all political parties have been in favour of granting OROP to the Defence Forces because of the special service conditions, highest degree of difficulty, early retirement and job requirements.
.
Are the Committees set up by the Govt consisting of only bureaucrats with no representation from Defence Forces considered superior to the Committees of Parliament, Group of Ministers, the Prime Minister and even the rulings of various courts in favour of Defence Personnel? Have we changed the definition of civilian control of Armed Forces and delegated the same to the bureaucrats? They are the questions in the minds of Defence veterans.
By the courtesy of Sanjha Morcha & IESM Gov Body
No comments:
Post a Comment