.

.

Wednesday, 30 March 2016

IESM : Projected points for One Man Judicial Commission

25 March 2016
Justice L.Narasimha Reddy
Retired Chief Justice of Patna High Court
C/OThe Raksha Mantri
South Block, Ministry of Defence
New Delhi
Urgent Need to Rectify Anomalies in OROP
in Govt notification dated 7 Nov 15
and Tables Dated 03.02.2016
Dear Sir,
Please refer to Govt executive letter dated 26 Feb 14, press release dated 5 Sep 15, Govt notification dated 7 Nov 15 and 14 Dec 15. Please also refer to the statement made by MOS Defense Sh Rao Inderjit Singh in Parliament on 2 Dec in reply to question asked by Sh Rajeev Chandrashekharregarding implementation of OROP Also refer to Implementation Tables issued vide Govt of India letter . (All attached)
One Rank One Pension was approved by UPA Govt in budget dated 17 Feb 14 and then by NDAGovt in their budget dated 10 Jun 14. UPA Government issued an executive order dated 26 Feb 14 for the implementation of OROP dues to veterans at the earliest. This was never implemented by the MOD nor a demand note was ever raised. The approved definition of OROP by two Governments is given below.
One Rank One Pension (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.
OROP implies that a senior rank soldier should never draw pension less than his junior rank soldier. This cardinal principle is the soul of OROP and must never be violated.
Government issued a notification on 7 Nov 15 for implementing OROP. Government reiterated above-mentioned definition of OROP in the letter but introduced some conditions in the notification that completely destroy the definition approved by two parliaments. These conditions have created four anomalies which completely violates the definition and thereby, the soul of OROP. These anomalies are discussed in detail in succeeding paragraphs.
1)    Fixation of Pension on calendar year of 2013 instead of FY of 2014: Fixation of pension as per calendar year 2013 would result in past retirees getting less pension of one increment than the soldier retiring today. This will result in past retirees drawing lesser pensions than present retirees. This will completely destroy definition of OROP approved by two Parliaments and will also result in loss of one increment across the board for past pensioners in perpetuity.
2)    Fixation of pension as mean of Min and Max pension: Fixing pension as mean of Min and Max pension of 2013 would result in more anomalies wherein same ranks with same length of service will draw two or more different pensions thus violating the very principle of OROP. This issue was discussed with RM in various meetings and after due deliberations it was decided that accepting highest pension of each rank in the year would meet the requirement as base of pension.
3)    Payment wef 1st Jul 14 instead of 1st Apr 14: OROP has been approved in budget of 2014-15 by two parliaments. As per norms of Government, all proposals approved in budget are applicable from 1st April of that FY. In the case of OROP, the Govt had issued specific orders to its applicability wef 1st April 14. Hence implementation date for OROP from 1st July will be against the Parliament approval. Changing the date would result in loss of 3 months emoluments for OROP across the board. However, if OROP implementation date is to be kept as 1st July, then the base pension should also be accepted as per the PPOs of July 2014.
4)    Pension Equalisation every five year: Pension equalisation every five year will result in a senior rank soldier drawing lesser pension than a junior rank soldier for five years thus OROP definition will be violated for five years. This will also result in permanent violation of definition as fresh cases will come up every year.
5)  Errors in OROP Tables issued dated 03.02.2016:  There are numerous errors in the constitution of Tables.  How this Table have been made is not known.  The fact is that no senior rank defence personnel should ever draw less pension their junior persons.  There are numerous instances in the Tables where in the senior rank and senior in service have been shown to draw less pension then his junior.  The tables need to be worked out afresh after all anomalies have been removed.  The most appropriate method to construct Tables would be to base these tables on live data.  The PPOs of defene personnel who retired in 2013 would removal that a Sepoywith 15 years of service should  get pension of approx Rs 7200 per month where as in the Tables, pension has been mentioned as Rs 6665/-.  This does not satisfy the approved OROP definition.  There are minimum such examples.  Nb Subedar of ‘Y’ group has been shown to get less then X Gp Havildar this making a senior rank defence, personal gets less than junior rank.  Nb Sub TA is shown getting more pension then Regular Nb Sub.  The three Service HQs pay cells must be involved in making this Table afresh

These anomalies will result in lesser pensions to widows, soldiers, NCOs and JCOs than what will be due to them on approval of OROP. This will result in veterans not getting OROP as per approved definition and will create large discontentment across all ranks.
There is a need to have a relook at the pensions of Hon Nb Subedars, Majors and Lt Cols.
a)     Some Havildars are granted rank of Hon Naib Subedar in view of their exemplary service. These soldiers are not granted pension of Naib Subedar thus making the Hon rank just ceremonial. It is requested that Hon Naib Subedars should get pension of a Naib Subedar rather than that of a Havildar. Similarly, this must be accepted as a principle and it should be applicable to all Hon ranks in case of NCOs and JCOs.

b)    There are only a few Majors as veterans. Moreover no officer is retiring in Major rank now. In the past, officers were promoted to Major rank after completing 13 yrs of service whereas present officers are getting promotion of Lt Col in 13 yrs. It will be justified to grant all pensioners of the rank of Major, minimum pension of Lt Col as they cannot be compared to present retirees as officers are not retiring as Majors any more. Number of such affected officers is not more than 800 and will not cause heavy burden to Govt.
c)     Similarly, all pre-2004 retiree Lt Cols should get the minimum pension of full Col. Presently all officers retire in the rank of Colonel hence all Lt Col equivalents should be granted min pension of Colonels.

          The above anomalies/discrepancies are being brought before you for resolution please.
          We will be available for the Presentation/discussion any time and date convenient to you.
With regards,
Yours Sincerely,
Maj Gen Satbir Singh, SM (Retd)
Chairman Indian Ex-Servicemen Movement (IESM )
Mobile: 9312404269, 01244110570 
Email:satbirsm@gmail.com      

************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
SECOND LETTER

25 March 2016
Justice L.Narasimha Reddy
Retired Chief Justice of Patna High Court
C/OThe Raksha Mantri
South Block, Ministry of Defence
New Delhi

Change of Definition of OROP
in Various Correspondence of DESW Noticed

Dear Sir,
Pl refer to:
1.   MOD letter no 12(01/2014-D (Pen/Pol) dated 26 Feb 14
2.   MOM of the meeting chaired by RM on 26 Feb 14 to discuss OROP
3.   Reply of MOS Defense Sh Rao Inderjit Singh Dated 2 Dec 14 in a written reply toSh Rajeev Chandrashekhar in Rajya Sabha
4.   GOI press release dated 5 Sep 15
5.   GOI letter no 12(1)/2014 dated 7 Nov 15 and
6.   GOI letter no 12(01)/2014-D(pen/pol)- Part–II dated 14 Dec 15
GOI has accepted following definition of OROP in the letters dated 26 Feb 14 and MOS statement in Rajya Sabha dated 2 Dec 14.

One Rank One Pension (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.

However in the Press Release dated 5 Sep 14, a phrase has been added at the end of the OROP definition “at periodic intervals”.

Definition of OROP given in 5 Sep Press Release is given below:

One Rank One Pension (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. 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 at periodic intervals.

This phrase has probably been added to justify pension equalisation every five years as is being propagated by the MOD.

Again, another attempt has been made to change/ distort the definition of OROP in GOI notification dated 7 Nov 15. OROP definition given in 7 Nov letter is reproduced below.

One Rank One Pension (OROP) implies that uniform pension be paid to the Defence Forces Personnel retiring in the same rank with the same length of service, regardless of their date of retirement, which implies bridging the gap between the rate of pension of the current pensioners and the past pensioners at periodic intervals.

I am sure you would notice subtle progressive change in the language of definition of OROP, wherein the line “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 pensioner” has been changed with the line “This implies bridging the gap between the rate of pension of the current pensioners and the past pensioners at periodic intervals”.

It further states as one of the salient features that it has been decided that the gap between rate of pension of current pensioners and past pensioners would be refixed every five years.

This completely changes the definition of OROP and if implemented in its changed form, it will deprive past pensioners of monetary benefits and will completely destroy the definition of OROP and in turn, destroy the very soul of OROP.

UFESM (JM) believes that this change in the definition in OROP has been inserted only to justify pension equalisation every five years. Pension equalisation every five years is against the definition of OROP and is a matter of serious concern for all Ex-servicemen. The correct and acceptable situation is that pension equalisation must be done as soon as pension of two soldiers with same rank and same length of service is noticed to be different and it must be equalised immediately. Ex-servicemen are ready to accept pension equalisation every year only to make administration of this concept easily implementable. Incidentally, any computation can be easily achieved on press of a button in today’s computer era – and this needs no emphasis.

However the matter did not end at one instance of change of definition of OROP, it has been once again repeated in GOI letter dated 14 Dec 15 “OROP implies that uniform pension be paid to the Defence Forces Personnel retiring in the same rank with the same length of service, regardless of their date of retirement, which implies that bridging the gap between the rate of pension of current and past pensioners at periodic intervals”.

The GOI letter dated 14 Dec 15 is the notification for the formation of one-man judicial committee. It is a matter of great importance that if incorrect definition is given to the Chairman of anomalies committee, he is bound to work within the constraints given by MOD and will thus give his recommendations as per incorrect definition given to him. This will be gross injustice to ex-servicemen. Ex-servicemen might be justified to think that these changes are a planned move for the vexed problem of OROP in view of the past experiences in which meanings of Honorable Supreme Court orders were changed by making subtle changes in the decision of HSC.

We sincerely hope that these changes are probably only clerical errors and not a planned direction change. We therefore sincerely request you to correct these mistakes in definition of OROP and give following definition approved by Parliament to all committees.

One Rank One Pension (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.


May we request for resolution of the serious anomaly since it changes the soul of approved OROP definition as per Govt Executive Order dated 26 Feb 2014 and also given out byMoS State Defence Sh. Rao Inderjit Singh dated 02 Dec 2014 in the Parliament.  IESM will be available for personal hearing on any date and time convenient please. 

          With regards,
Yours Sincerely,
Maj Gen Satbir Singh, SM (Retd)
Chairman Indian Ex-Servicemen Movement (IESM )
Mobile: 9312404269, 01244110570 
Email:satbirsm@gmail.com       

Source - indianmilitaryveterans blogs 

4 comments:

  1. Amendment required :- Sub TA is getting more pension then Regular Sub (instead of Nb Sub).

    ReplyDelete
  2. The above two letters are fully justified. It is hoped that the seeming clerical error is rectified by the Ministry of Defence, before Justice Reddy Committee sits down to adjudicate the anomalies in the definition of OROP and resultant inaccuracies in the fixation of pensions of ex-servicemen. There should also be a method for the ex-servicemen to know that the errors in the terms of reference given to Justice Reddy have been rectified.

    ReplyDelete
  3. one rank one pension means only one pension as service Headquarters issued earlier ,now the govt has issued is totally different,a separation is created between technical & non technical PBOR.These differences are required to resolve at earliest.

    ReplyDelete

1396