Actually,
there is no mystery. All the facts are recorded and documented. However, in the
race to claim credit (and disown criticism), the OROP issue is being presented
as a big controversy shrouded in mystery.
Get
facts right
Let’s get
the facts right. The Indian Armed Forces are voluntary forces. There is no
conscription. Men and women join the forces as jawans or officers for a variety
of reasons and, among them, is the security of a job. While the job is
reasonably secure, it is not a job for the entire working life. According to
the report of the Koshiyari Committee, 85 per cent of the Armed Forces
personnel retire by the age of 38 years and another 10 per cent retire by the
age of 46 years. They have to work for a living for many more years, but there
is no guarantee of a post-retirement job.
Retirement
at an early age is good and necessary to keep the forces young and fighting
fit. Hence the case for an honourable pension.
There is
another reason to make pension an attractive term of service that has not been
noticed adequately: it is to attract new volunteers. The attrition rates, and
the vacancy levels, are alarmingly high and, if the Armed Forces have to remain
voluntary forces, recruitment must remain robust. The promise of an honourable
pension is an important factor in recruitment.
OROP is an
honourable pension. The time to debate the merits and demerits of OROP is over.
It was a decision taken by the UPA government and reiterated by the NDA
government. Both may share credit.
Some more
undisputed facts: While presenting the interim budget for 2014-15 on 17
February 2014, I had said: “During the tenure of the UPA Governments, changes
in the pension rules applicable to the defence services were notified on three
occasions in 2006, 2010 and 2013. As a result, the gap between pre-2006
retirees and post-2006 retirees has been closed in four ranks (subject to some
anomalies that are being addressed): Havildar, Naib Subedar, Subedar and
Subedar Major….. Government has therefore decided to walk the last mile and
close the gap for all retirees in all ranks. I am happy to announce that
Government has accepted the principle of One Rank One Pension for the defence
forces.”
What
is OROP?
On 26
February 2014, the Ministry of Defence defined OROP and the following
definition was communicated to the Chiefs of the three Services: “OROP implies
that uniform pension be paid to the Armed Forces personnel retiring in the
same rank with the same length of service irrespective of their date of retirement
and any future enhancement in the rates of pension to be automatically passed
on to the past pensioners. This implies bridging the gap between the rate of
pension of the current pensioners and the past pensioners, and also future
enhancements in the rate of pension to be automatically passed on to the past
pensioners.”
The
letter was a 4-page, 12-paragraph letter that left no doubt on what was
intended to be done. The conditions, modalities and the manner of
implementation were spelt out in detail. On 22 April 2014 a Working Group was
constituted with the Controller General of Defence Accounts as the chairperson
with Terms of Reference that included “to work out the detailed financial
implications.” It was specifically stated that “since substantial increase is
anticipated in expenditure on OROP, FA (DS) would thereafter seek additional
funds as per requirement.”
Much is
made of the fact that the interim budget provided only Rs 500 crore. It was, as
I had said, an estimate and the money was provided as “an earnest of the UPA
Government’s commitment.” Mr Arun Jaitley reaffirmed the commitment in
his Budget Speech on 10 July 2014. And, pray, how much did he provide? He said,
“we propose to set aside a further sum of Rs 1,000 crore to meet this year’s requirement”!
So, why
is the Government adding ifs and buts? Why is the Government adding
unacceptable riders or conditions that will dilute the “commitment” of two
successive Governments?
Reject
the objections
The
sticking points are entirely due to bureaucratic back-pedalling and the
inability of the Government to overrule the objections. The promise must
prevail over the objections, even if some of them appear valid. The promise was
to implement OROP from 1 April 2014, and not 1 July 2014.
The
promise was same pension to personnel retiring in the same rank with the same
length of service, and not grant of same pension by looking into the cause of
retirement. The promise was that future enhancements in the rate of pension
will be automatically passed on to the past pensioners, and not that the
adjustment will be made every five years.
OROP is
indeed a defined benefit pension and different from the National Pension System
(NPS) which is a contributory pension scheme. A person who has a short working
life in the Armed Services cannot contribute enough during that period to earn
an honourable pension. Hence OROP.
Whatever
it takes to implement OROP, the resources must be found. In 2010-11, the RBI
transferred to Government a surplus of Rs 15,009 crore. Who thought RBI would
transfer Rs 65,896 crore in 2015-16? If there is will, a way can be found.
by kind courtesy of
The defense services cannot be voluntary service and is an essential services with curtailment of fundamental rites provided to the citizens of India by the constitution of India, for which nothing in the world can compensate in any form.
ReplyDelete