Disclaimer

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

COMMENTS ON OROP REPORT - Lt Cdr Avtar Singh

Dear Brigadier kamboj,
.
This is in refernce with petition filed by Shri Rajiv Chandershekhar Very little that I know about the case is attached.
.
Regards
Lt Cdr Avtar Singh
.
COMMENTS ON OROP REPORT
For the Parliamentary Committee Rajya Sabha.
.
This bears reference to petition filed By Hon’ble MP Shri Rajiv Chandershekhar in Rajya Sabha.
.
My comments on the above are appended below/
.
1. The Committee of Secretary has based their report on :
(a) Findings of Previous Committees set up by the Government
(b) Six cpc Recommendations/observations
.
2, The Government was well aware about the findings of previous committee and was also aware about the recommendations of six cpc.. Even then the Committee of Secretary was told to examine the issue. It was expected that the committee will come up with some new findings but that has not been so. It appear that fate of the report was determined even before the committee had deliberated the issue.
.
Notwithstanding above I would like to bring few glaring irregularities which I have brought to the notice of cabinet Secretary as well as IESM at AGM of 2009.viz
.
(a ) Vide paragraph 2.10 of OROP report it was observed that the Extant (meaning still existing) arrangement to continue. This is a reproduction of pargraph 5.1.46 and 5.1.58 of six cpc report which unfortunately are non existent If the extant provision was to continue then the pension of Major/ equivalent cannot be less than RS 18205 50% of minimum pay of their serving counter part which is Rs 36410.
.
I shall extend it little further and state that the pension of any pensioner from Sepoy to general cannot be less than 50% of the minimum of pay of their serving counterpart. The committee of Secretary has therefore not taken adequate note of this recommendations
.
3 MOST DISTURBING Paragraph 6.6 has been completely distorted to justify their decision viz
.
(a) Minimm of Pay in Pay band has been arbitrarily and unauthorisedly altered to Minimum of pay Band. This has a devastating effect on the pension of officers of the rank of major/equivalent and resulted in sixteen litigation at AFT Principal bench Delhi and Chandigarh
.
(b) The Committee of Secretary has been selective in quoting recommendation of six cpc at pargraph 5.1.47 by stating that”The commission accordingly, recommends that all past pensioners should be allowed fitment benefit equal to 40% of pension excluding the effect of merger of 50% dearness allowannce/dearness relief as pension (in respect of pensioner on or after 1/4/2004) and dearness pension (for other pensioners) respectively. The increase will be allowed by subsuming the effect of conversion of 50% of dearness relief dearness allowance as dearness pension/dearness pay. Consequently the dearness relief at 74% on pension(excluding the effect of merger has been taken for the purpose of computing revised pension as on 1-1-2006.”
.
The above is only a part of the recommendation list at paragraph 5.1.47 and has a rider attached to it.
.
4. Just before above recommendation the six cpc has stated the following. However in order to maintain the existing modified parity between present and future retirees, it will be necessary to allow them the same fitment benefit as is recommended for the existing government employee.
.
5 Immediately after the recommendation at para 3 above the following recommendations are made
.
6.This is consistent with fitment benefit being allowed in case of the existing employees.
.
7.The committee of secretary has not at all taken note of the riding clause of 5.1.47 which states as follows
.
8 The fixation of pension as per this table shall be subject to the provision that revised pension, in no case shall be lower than fifty percent of the sum of the minimum of the pay in pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre revised pay scale from which the pensioner has retired.
.
9 To this extent a change would need to be allowed from the fitment table.
.
10 At armed forces tribunal Delhi it was brought to the notice of the Judge that there may be thousands of permutation and combination but riding clause at paragraph 8 and 9 above would nullify all.
.
11 Finally the purpose of this e mail is not to justify Major case in AFT(which has its own leg to stand) but the way committee of secretary has handled the case
.
12 Immediately on receipt of the report I have written two letters to Cabinet secretary but as usual they must be lying in some isolated corner
.
13 Sentence by sentence analysis of pargraph 5.1.47 is enclosed.
.
PARAGRAPH 5.1.47 SENTENCE BY SENTENCE AMALYSIS
.
1.Commission notes that modified parity has already been concededbetween pre and post 1/1/96 pensioners.
.
2. Further full neutralization of price rise on or after 1/1/96 has already been extended to all pensioners.
.
3. Accordinfgly no further changes in the extant rules are necessary.
.
4. However in order to maintain the existing modified parity between present and future retirees, it will be necessary to allow them the same fitment benefit as is recommended for the existing government employees.
.
5.The commission accordingly, recommends that all past pensioners should be a;;owed fitment benefit equal to 40% of pension excluding the effect of merger of 50% dearness allowamnce/dearness relief as pension (in respect of pensioner on or after 1/4/2004) and dearness pension (for other pensioners) respectively. The increase will be allowed by subsuming the effect of conversion of 50% of dearness relief dearness allowance as dearness pension/dearness pay. Consequently the dearness relief at b74% on pension(excluding the effect of merger has been taken for the purpose of computing revised pension as on 1-1-2006.
.
6. This is consistent with fitment benefit being allowed in case of the existing employees.
.
7.A table (Annex5.1.1) showing fixation of existing pensioners in the revised dispensation consequent to the implementation of the recommendation has been prepared and should be used for fixing the revised pension of existing employees.
.
The fixation of pension as per this table shall be subject to the provision that revised pension, in no case shall be lower than fifty percent of the sum of the minimum of the pay in pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre revised pay scale from which the pensioner has retired.
.
9 To this extent a change would need to be allowed from the fitment table..

SOME OTHER IDEAS
THAT MAY BE WOVEN IN

.
1, Any military person who retired long ago would need almost the same income to live on as another who retires more recently. In fact, the older a person the higher his or her expenses due to a number of causes directly related to age. In recognition of this an enhancement of pension has been authorised at the age of 80 years with a further addition every five years. But many veterans may never survive to this age, and prior to it their expenses remain high. Thus there can be no justification for forcing an old person to manage with a lower income compared to a younger veteran.
.
2, The different rates of pension depending on dates of retirement seem to be arbitrary and probably violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
.
3, The bureaucracy should clarify exactly what legal difficulties exist in this type of implementation of pension disbursement. It should also clarify if these so-called legal difficulties militate against the Constitution or are in conformity with it, including with laws derived from it.

No comments:

Post a Comment