FLASH

WATCH THIS BLOG REGULARLY FOR LATEST NEWS ON ONE RANK ONE PENSION & OTHER SERVICE BENEFITS RELATING TO EX-SERVICE PENSIONERS,CENTRAL GOVT PENSIONERS,LIC/GIC PENSIONERS* A UNIQUE BLOG WITH 65 LAKHS VIEWERS & 600 FOLLOWERS #

Friday, 26 February 2016

Rajya Sabha MP writes to Parrikar; lists anomalies in One Rank One Pension scheme

Rajya Sabha MP Rajeev Chandrasekhar on Thursday wrote to Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar listing five anomalies that require attention and revision in order to fully implement One Rank One Pension scheme. He wrote the letter taking note of the terms of reference of one-man judicial committee which stated that it will "examine and make recommendations on references received from the Central government".
The government had on December 14 last year appointed Justice (retd) L Narasimha Reddy as the head of the committee to look into the implementation of OROP. Chandrasekhar said the initiative was a welcome move.
Listing the anomalies, he said equalisation of pensions every five years will bring disparity in pensions and result in senior-ranked officers drawing lesser pension than junior- ranked officers for five years. He said that fixation of pension as per calendar year 2013 would result in past retirees getting less pension of one increment than the soldier retiring today.
The Rajya Sabha MP said that since OROP was approved in the central budget 2014-15, applicability of the same must be 1st April of the same year. Another issue that he raised was denial of OROP to premature retirees from now on.
It is not desirable that pension entitlements under the pension regulations as per Defence Services Regulations be modified through OROP. "It will create a class within a class giving rise to a situation which may not withstand legal scrutiny," he said.

15 comments :

  1. Rajeev, your voice too failed again and again, the bureaucrats got their own false intellectualism.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It is a welcome step

    ReplyDelete
  3. Pension revision every yr can only bring in orop as per definition. Fixation of pension 4 JCO/OR must be fixed on max of notational pay in band in 20 yrs.full pension basis. That oly wll redress our grievences.

    ReplyDelete
  4. MP Rajeev's letter 2 DM once again undermines JCO/ORs cause 4 OROP as only offrs' concerns adv ocated by him. 7th pay comn fur- ther widens d gap betn pension of lowest pensionsble rank of offrs. & highest of PBORs. PBORs shuld desl wth d matter 1 2 1 wth DM. Approaching court of law is time consuming but sureshot 2 justice!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Every rule amended for officers are applicable to the PBOR too. You are not following the blogs that discuss and recommend the increase to the percentage of Last Pay Drawn by PBOR from 50-70%. The officers cases are discussed just because the bureaucrats understand at that level only. Don't blame the senior officers fighting for all of us. Jai Hnd.

      Delete
  5. Approaching the court is good for future of ORs/JCOs









































































    ReplyDelete
  6. dear sir,

    creation of X and Y group is against the norms of OROP definition, nobody is willing to highlight this point, there should be no X and Y group only one group should be in respect of JCOs and OR with regard to OROP

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think serving officer and retired officer treating jawans and JCOs third class citizen. For ssking benefit they say wr are sainik. But for otheir reason they ask for their benefit. No officer or govt is worried abot welfare of JCO and jawan. Till 5th pay commission pension of jco/jawan was fixed on maximum of pay of that rank for example a subedar served 28 year of service. His scale was 6600 - 9300. His pension was fixed by 50% of 9300 ..ie. 4650. But in six pay commission it was brought down to 50% of last pay drawn the main problem started from here. No officer objected this. Because rule was from them was average of 10 month average pay drawn from earlier also. No body including service chief raised this point.in six pay commission because that was not effecting them. Officer are sitting on Jantar Manter for their benefit. Jawan are just accompanying to support them. If it would have been jawans problem they would have come for dharna for one day. If you see in seventh pay commission recommendation. Regarding MSP commission have itself that JCO will be disappointed.
    Officer have not raised this point in 7th pay commission. Only we can get justice from court. We were thinking that chair man 7 pay commission will do the justice. But noting from him for jawan/JCO. We hope justice from supreme court only. If matter referred to SC.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Who seen this comments
    Politicians,FM,DM, Nothing. This is KN REDDY

    ReplyDelete
  9. He raised relevant facts but missed a few.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Why the IESM is delaying the SC approach? Is there another carrot dangling?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Sir, My Father Retired as Major completing 20. year of service. Retired in 30th Aug 1980. Will he get Lt.Col pension ?
    Please clear him. On his mobile no. 09316914448

    ReplyDelete
  12. What a joke! I retired in 2010. I thought that atleast I will get few rupees increase in my pension because of the increase of increment in every year but the new OROP chart shows less for me than what I am already drawing.
    Well done! Good show!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Note to Major General Satbir Singh: Now that on 06 Apr 2016 the Union Cabinet has given its ex-post facto approval to the diluted version of the OROP adamantly for the veterans, it is time to approach the SC for remedy. The Reddy Commission's recommendations will be a lame duck in remedying our concerns as the things go. There is much time lost in getting our dues and this peaceful movement must at the earliest be taken to the SC for an early redressal. If we fail there too, we must resign to the gun pointed at us by this government.

    ReplyDelete