SOURCE;http://7thpaycommissionnews.in/
Friday, 13 March 2015
Thursday, 12 March 2015
RECORD OF DISCUSSION WITH RM: 11 MAR 2015 BY Col Anil Kaul
I had the occasion to meet the RM today for a duration of 45 mins in his South Block Office. The COAS was also present.
A record of our discussion is appended below.
1. Disability Issues: The Hon’ble RM wanted a firsthand account of the effects of disability from a person who had undergone such trauma as against hearing it from other sources. Certain facts were conveyed including citing of personal examples which despite over twenty five years of consideration at various levels remain unresolved. A hard copy of all such issues was handed over to the RM.
2. Non-Implementation of Orders of SC/ Non Issue of Instructions on Disability Related issues of Def Pers including the following: -
(a) Na-Na Cases
(b) Less than 20% disability cases
(c) Disability when on leave
(d) Broad-banding for those who superannuated
(e) Broad-banding for those who took voluntary retirement?
(f) MOD is yet to issue letter for enhanced DP for enhanced pension WEF Sep`12, though case has been taken up by Service HQ.
Comments of RM: He said that all disability related issues would be taken up appropriately w.e.f. 13 Mar 2015.He assured me that we would soon see the issue of operative letters.
3. Additional Points: A few additional points regarding disability were also discussed with personal examples that would have an effect on the larger disabled environment of the disabled in the Armed Forces. These are enumerated below: -
(a) There no system of post disability trauma onset in any of the three services including counselling to enable a disabled soldier to start functioning anew albeit with a few parts missing. This needs immediate implementation.
(b) There has to be a clear cut divide between those placed in LMC in normal course and BC’s. This must percolate down to their employment and functioning. I suggested that for starters at least in the Army suitable disabled officers be posted in the AG’s & MS branches as only a disabled understands the effects of disability. Moreover such actions do not require any elaborate Govt sanctions.
(c) I submitted that “Constant Attendance Allowance” should be applicable suo moto to anyone with 50% disability especially as after superannuation all manner of physical support available in service ceases. The RMB should be the final authority with the PCDA (P) not having any say in this.
(d) Payment of double conveyance allowance, where authorised to disabled personnel should be as matter of course and not based on claims. We are all aware of who is authorised Government tpt is and who is not.
(e) All service group Insurances are private entities and should offer disability benefits to BC’s retained in service and who superannuate in the normal course.
2
The funds available are adequate and if necessary and additional levy on premium can cater for this aspect.
To deny this to one segment is a violation of the principle of equality. Notwithstanding what the Govt provides in such cases as that is a part of a service obligation whereas group insurances are private funds meant for this. The RM was appreciative of this logic and even suggested a methodology for the COAS to consider. The RM even mentioned that shortfalls if any could be made up by the MoD.
(f) As per AO 17/89 Battle Casualties have the option of taking disability pension as a capitalized value in service. However there is no provision of restoration of such commuted value as in the case of normal pension. Disability is for life and there needs to be a reconsideration of restoring the capitalized value after 15 years, for those who took this option, as in the case of normal pension. A detailed case study is as given below:
1. Reference AO 17/89.
2. On Superannuation every service personnel is entitled to service pension. This consists of the service element and the disability element. As a battle casualty I come under the purview of the AO ibid.
3. Personal Illustrative Case: I am 80% disabled due to battle injuries for life. As per AO 17/ 89 I was, entitled to, as were other BC’s, “War Injury Pay”. As per awards of the 4CPC, this was specified as “percentage of disability equivalent of percentage of pay drawn at the time of injury”. My pay at that point was approximately Rs 4200/- therefore I should have been entitled to 80% of which came to Rs 3360/- pm. This was later amended to “Not more than Rs 1500/- per month allowed for 100% disability due to normal service conditions”. This was to be proportionately reduced for lower percentages. Accordingly I was entitled to Rs 1200/- pm. A loss of 3360- 1200 = 2160/- As a result BC’s lost out on higher emoluments due to some change that was not noticed by those dealing with such cases.
4. A second provision of the AO was that one could take the capitalized value of this amount in service or await superannuation to get a disability pension. This was to be calculated for a time period of service to an age and service in the same rank that is in my case a Major. As can be seen I lost out on the following counts: -
(a) Reduction in overall authorized amount.
(b) No consideration for promotion beyond the rank of Major.
(c) No consideration for age applicable beyond the rank of Major.
5. I was paid such compensation after ten years of my injury. A request for interest on delayed payments was initially rejected till the Delhi High Court gave a ruling in my favour on which CDA (O) paid me the interest in the year 2000, i.e. after thirteen years of my injury and a court case lasting over two years.
6. The acerbic language of Army HQ, as a measure of no respect to battle casualties, stated, “ That the case stands closed and no further discussions would be appreciated” So much for winning a gallantry award and losing your limbs.
3
7. Appeal: Notwithstanding the above as in the case of commuted value of service element of pension that is restored after a finite period of 13/15 years, similarly the capitalized value of disability pension needs restoration after a suitable period of time. In my case, the capitalized value has been taken for the rank of “Major” superannuation was 50 years that I crossed in Jul 2001 a full four years before superannuating in 2005 in the rank of “Colonel”. Considering that the capitalized value was applicable from 12 Oct 1987 but paid to me in 1996, a total of 25 years have passed and therefore the disability element of pension paid as capitalized value in service now needs restoration, keeping in mind that the disability is for life and as one ages the effects become more debilitating.
(g) A staff check would show that there would be a handful of such personnel in such a predicament.
4. OROP The RM gave out the status of OROP as on date. The salient features of which are as follows: -
(a) The final document duly cleared by the FA (Def) and signed by him is being fwd to the FM today. I.e. 11 Mar 2015.
(b) The amount worked out remains at Rs 8298 Cr.
(c) He is scheduled to meet the PM & FM on 16 Mar 2015 on the issue.
(d) He is adhering to the time schedule as indicated on 2 Mar 2015 to the IESM delegation. I.e implementation instructions by 31/3 15. At worst case 30/4/15.
(e) 86% of beneficiaries are JCO’s & NCO’s, The balance 14% divided between Officers and family pensioners i.e. Vir Naris.
There being no other points the meeting was closed.
Anil Kaul
Col Anil Kaul, VrC
11 Mar 2015
https://www.facebook.com/
A record of our discussion is appended below.
1. Disability Issues: The Hon’ble RM wanted a firsthand account of the effects of disability from a person who had undergone such trauma as against hearing it from other sources. Certain facts were conveyed including citing of personal examples which despite over twenty five years of consideration at various levels remain unresolved. A hard copy of all such issues was handed over to the RM.
2. Non-Implementation of Orders of SC/ Non Issue of Instructions on Disability Related issues of Def Pers including the following: -
(a) Na-Na Cases
(b) Less than 20% disability cases
(c) Disability when on leave
(d) Broad-banding for those who superannuated
(e) Broad-banding for those who took voluntary retirement?
(f) MOD is yet to issue letter for enhanced DP for enhanced pension WEF Sep`12, though case has been taken up by Service HQ.
Comments of RM: He said that all disability related issues would be taken up appropriately w.e.f. 13 Mar 2015.He assured me that we would soon see the issue of operative letters.
3. Additional Points: A few additional points regarding disability were also discussed with personal examples that would have an effect on the larger disabled environment of the disabled in the Armed Forces. These are enumerated below: -
(a) There no system of post disability trauma onset in any of the three services including counselling to enable a disabled soldier to start functioning anew albeit with a few parts missing. This needs immediate implementation.
(b) There has to be a clear cut divide between those placed in LMC in normal course and BC’s. This must percolate down to their employment and functioning. I suggested that for starters at least in the Army suitable disabled officers be posted in the AG’s & MS branches as only a disabled understands the effects of disability. Moreover such actions do not require any elaborate Govt sanctions.
(c) I submitted that “Constant Attendance Allowance” should be applicable suo moto to anyone with 50% disability especially as after superannuation all manner of physical support available in service ceases. The RMB should be the final authority with the PCDA (P) not having any say in this.
(d) Payment of double conveyance allowance, where authorised to disabled personnel should be as matter of course and not based on claims. We are all aware of who is authorised Government tpt is and who is not.
(e) All service group Insurances are private entities and should offer disability benefits to BC’s retained in service and who superannuate in the normal course.
2
The funds available are adequate and if necessary and additional levy on premium can cater for this aspect.
To deny this to one segment is a violation of the principle of equality. Notwithstanding what the Govt provides in such cases as that is a part of a service obligation whereas group insurances are private funds meant for this. The RM was appreciative of this logic and even suggested a methodology for the COAS to consider. The RM even mentioned that shortfalls if any could be made up by the MoD.
(f) As per AO 17/89 Battle Casualties have the option of taking disability pension as a capitalized value in service. However there is no provision of restoration of such commuted value as in the case of normal pension. Disability is for life and there needs to be a reconsideration of restoring the capitalized value after 15 years, for those who took this option, as in the case of normal pension. A detailed case study is as given below:
1. Reference AO 17/89.
2. On Superannuation every service personnel is entitled to service pension. This consists of the service element and the disability element. As a battle casualty I come under the purview of the AO ibid.
3. Personal Illustrative Case: I am 80% disabled due to battle injuries for life. As per AO 17/ 89 I was, entitled to, as were other BC’s, “War Injury Pay”. As per awards of the 4CPC, this was specified as “percentage of disability equivalent of percentage of pay drawn at the time of injury”. My pay at that point was approximately Rs 4200/- therefore I should have been entitled to 80% of which came to Rs 3360/- pm. This was later amended to “Not more than Rs 1500/- per month allowed for 100% disability due to normal service conditions”. This was to be proportionately reduced for lower percentages. Accordingly I was entitled to Rs 1200/- pm. A loss of 3360- 1200 = 2160/- As a result BC’s lost out on higher emoluments due to some change that was not noticed by those dealing with such cases.
4. A second provision of the AO was that one could take the capitalized value of this amount in service or await superannuation to get a disability pension. This was to be calculated for a time period of service to an age and service in the same rank that is in my case a Major. As can be seen I lost out on the following counts: -
(a) Reduction in overall authorized amount.
(b) No consideration for promotion beyond the rank of Major.
(c) No consideration for age applicable beyond the rank of Major.
5. I was paid such compensation after ten years of my injury. A request for interest on delayed payments was initially rejected till the Delhi High Court gave a ruling in my favour on which CDA (O) paid me the interest in the year 2000, i.e. after thirteen years of my injury and a court case lasting over two years.
6. The acerbic language of Army HQ, as a measure of no respect to battle casualties, stated, “ That the case stands closed and no further discussions would be appreciated” So much for winning a gallantry award and losing your limbs.
3
7. Appeal: Notwithstanding the above as in the case of commuted value of service element of pension that is restored after a finite period of 13/15 years, similarly the capitalized value of disability pension needs restoration after a suitable period of time. In my case, the capitalized value has been taken for the rank of “Major” superannuation was 50 years that I crossed in Jul 2001 a full four years before superannuating in 2005 in the rank of “Colonel”. Considering that the capitalized value was applicable from 12 Oct 1987 but paid to me in 1996, a total of 25 years have passed and therefore the disability element of pension paid as capitalized value in service now needs restoration, keeping in mind that the disability is for life and as one ages the effects become more debilitating.
(g) A staff check would show that there would be a handful of such personnel in such a predicament.
4. OROP The RM gave out the status of OROP as on date. The salient features of which are as follows: -
(a) The final document duly cleared by the FA (Def) and signed by him is being fwd to the FM today. I.e. 11 Mar 2015.
(b) The amount worked out remains at Rs 8298 Cr.
(c) He is scheduled to meet the PM & FM on 16 Mar 2015 on the issue.
(d) He is adhering to the time schedule as indicated on 2 Mar 2015 to the IESM delegation. I.e implementation instructions by 31/3 15. At worst case 30/4/15.
(e) 86% of beneficiaries are JCO’s & NCO’s, The balance 14% divided between Officers and family pensioners i.e. Vir Naris.
There being no other points the meeting was closed.
Anil Kaul
Col Anil Kaul, VrC
11 Mar 2015
https://www.facebook.com/
Tuesday, 10 March 2015
3SLP IN SC DELAYS REVISION OF PRE-2006 PENSIONERS
No.38177-AJ09-P&PW(A)(Pt.)
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pensions
Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare
Lok Nayak Bhawan,
Khan Market, New Delhi-ll0 003
Dated the 5th March, 2015
Office Memorandum
Sub:- Revision of pension ofpre-2006 pensioners - reg.
The orders for implementation of the decision taken by the Government on the recommendations of 6th CPC for revision for pension of past pensioners were issued vide Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare's OM dated 1.9.2008. The provisions of Para 4.2 of this OM were clarified vide this Department's letter dated 3.10.2008.
2. The Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in its common order dated 1.11.2011 in four petitions [OA No.655/2010, 306/2010, 50712010 and 3079/2009] directed that the past pensioners may be granted, w.e.f. 1.1.2006, a minimum pension with reference to the fitment table applicable for revision of pay of serving employees.
3. A large number of representations from pre-2006 pensioners are being received by the Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare for extension of benefits similar to what had been
allowed in case ofOA NO.655/2010 by CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi.
4. In this context, it is informed that four Writ Petitions were filed in the High Court of Delhi challenging the order dated 1.11.2011 of Hon'ble CAT in four OAs. These petitions were dismissed on 29.4.2013. Subsequently, four SLPs were filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court over a period of time against the said order of the Hon'ble High Court. Of the four SLPs, the one pertaining to Central Government SAG (S-29) Pensioners' Association which was first in the series of said SLPs, has since been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 29.7.2013. As the Reviewl Curative Petition against the said order dated 29.7.2013 also failed, the Government of India decided to comply with the order by extending the requisite benefits to the parties involved in the said SLP. As regards the other three SLPs (Nos.36148-50/2013), Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 19.11.2013 issued notice and made the following observation: .
"Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that during the pendency of these petitions the respondent-writ petitioners shall not precipitate the matter by filing contempt proceedings either before the High Court or before the Tribunal. That statement is recorded. "
5. Thus the issue of revision of pension of pre-2006 pensioners w.e.f. 1.1.2006 as covered under SLP Nos. 36148-50/2013 in the Apex Court which have been tagged with Civil Appeal
No.887S-76/20 11 filed by Ministry of Defence in a similar matter is subjudice.
6. This is for information.
~ ~\
(S.K. Makkar)
Under Secretary to the Government of India
7. The outcome of SLPs under reference in Para (4) would be brought to the Ministries/Departments.
To
All Ministries/Departments.
v6py to NIC for uploading the above OM on the website of the Department.
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pensions
Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare
Lok Nayak Bhawan,
Khan Market, New Delhi-ll0 003
Dated the 5th March, 2015
Office Memorandum
Sub:- Revision of pension ofpre-2006 pensioners - reg.
The orders for implementation of the decision taken by the Government on the recommendations of 6th CPC for revision for pension of past pensioners were issued vide Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare's OM dated 1.9.2008. The provisions of Para 4.2 of this OM were clarified vide this Department's letter dated 3.10.2008.
2. The Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in its common order dated 1.11.2011 in four petitions [OA No.655/2010, 306/2010, 50712010 and 3079/2009] directed that the past pensioners may be granted, w.e.f. 1.1.2006, a minimum pension with reference to the fitment table applicable for revision of pay of serving employees.
3. A large number of representations from pre-2006 pensioners are being received by the Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare for extension of benefits similar to what had been
allowed in case ofOA NO.655/2010 by CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi.
4. In this context, it is informed that four Writ Petitions were filed in the High Court of Delhi challenging the order dated 1.11.2011 of Hon'ble CAT in four OAs. These petitions were dismissed on 29.4.2013. Subsequently, four SLPs were filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court over a period of time against the said order of the Hon'ble High Court. Of the four SLPs, the one pertaining to Central Government SAG (S-29) Pensioners' Association which was first in the series of said SLPs, has since been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 29.7.2013. As the Reviewl Curative Petition against the said order dated 29.7.2013 also failed, the Government of India decided to comply with the order by extending the requisite benefits to the parties involved in the said SLP. As regards the other three SLPs (Nos.36148-50/2013), Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 19.11.2013 issued notice and made the following observation: .
"Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that during the pendency of these petitions the respondent-writ petitioners shall not precipitate the matter by filing contempt proceedings either before the High Court or before the Tribunal. That statement is recorded. "
5. Thus the issue of revision of pension of pre-2006 pensioners w.e.f. 1.1.2006 as covered under SLP Nos. 36148-50/2013 in the Apex Court which have been tagged with Civil Appeal
No.887S-76/20 11 filed by Ministry of Defence in a similar matter is subjudice.
6. This is for information.
~ ~\
(S.K. Makkar)
Under Secretary to the Government of India
7. The outcome of SLPs under reference in Para (4) would be brought to the Ministries/Departments.
To
All Ministries/Departments.
v6py to NIC for uploading the above OM on the website of the Department.
Monday, 9 March 2015
MILITARY PENSION FACES AXE
By: Express News Service |
Published on:March 9, 2015 12:00 am
There is an urgent need to debate the rising defence pension
bill. In 2004, a debate over the mounting civilian pension bill led to
the New Pension System for government employees, where pension
contributions were defined and not benefits. But the armed forces were
excluded from that system. Now, a beginning can be made by including
pensions in the official defence budget.
In 1985, when Rajiv Gandhi was prime minister, defence pensions were removed from India’s overall defence expenditure, presumably to assuage global concerns about India’s defence bill, which was linked to its regional ambitions. The defence expenditure was then 3.6 per cent of India’s GDP. When that ratio has now come down to 1.75 per cent, the lowest in the post-1962 era, defence pensions still continue to be excluded from the defence bill. Over the years, defence pensions have grown exponentially — from Rs 1,670 crore in 1990-91 to Rs 15,244 crore in 2007-08 to Rs 50,000 crore in the current year — at a much faster pace than the defence budget. Next year, defence pensions are budgeted at Rs 54,500 crore, placed outside the official defence budget of Rs 2,46,727 crore. The pension bill is likely to rise by another Rs 8,400 crore with the implementation of the One Rank One Pension (OROP) scheme for military veterans. Every successive Pay Commission has raised the pension burden exponentially and the Seventh Pay Commission, coupled with the effect of OROP, will hit the exchequer even harder.
Approximately 60,000 soldiers retire from the 1.3 million-strong armed forces every year but early recruitment and retirement age, coupled with increased life expectancy, means that military veterans get pensions for a longer period than their civilian counterparts. Thus India now has 1.7 defence pensioners on its rolls for every serving soldier, compared to civilian employees where the ratio is 0.56 pensioners per employee, and defence pensions will soon exceed defence salaries. Even if military veterans and soldiers can’t be moved to a New Pension System, there is a need to look at other measures, such as reducing the minimum military service period, pushing for early retirement with lateral absorption schemes and identifying a new model of defence pensions for new recruits. These are desirable not only on the grounds of fiscal prudence, but also to keep the military lean and young.
http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/
In 1985, when Rajiv Gandhi was prime minister, defence pensions were removed from India’s overall defence expenditure, presumably to assuage global concerns about India’s defence bill, which was linked to its regional ambitions. The defence expenditure was then 3.6 per cent of India’s GDP. When that ratio has now come down to 1.75 per cent, the lowest in the post-1962 era, defence pensions still continue to be excluded from the defence bill. Over the years, defence pensions have grown exponentially — from Rs 1,670 crore in 1990-91 to Rs 15,244 crore in 2007-08 to Rs 50,000 crore in the current year — at a much faster pace than the defence budget. Next year, defence pensions are budgeted at Rs 54,500 crore, placed outside the official defence budget of Rs 2,46,727 crore. The pension bill is likely to rise by another Rs 8,400 crore with the implementation of the One Rank One Pension (OROP) scheme for military veterans. Every successive Pay Commission has raised the pension burden exponentially and the Seventh Pay Commission, coupled with the effect of OROP, will hit the exchequer even harder.
Approximately 60,000 soldiers retire from the 1.3 million-strong armed forces every year but early recruitment and retirement age, coupled with increased life expectancy, means that military veterans get pensions for a longer period than their civilian counterparts. Thus India now has 1.7 defence pensioners on its rolls for every serving soldier, compared to civilian employees where the ratio is 0.56 pensioners per employee, and defence pensions will soon exceed defence salaries. Even if military veterans and soldiers can’t be moved to a New Pension System, there is a need to look at other measures, such as reducing the minimum military service period, pushing for early retirement with lateral absorption schemes and identifying a new model of defence pensions for new recruits. These are desirable not only on the grounds of fiscal prudence, but also to keep the military lean and young.
http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/
Monday, 2 March 2015
BRIEFING OF IESM MEETING WITH DM ON OROP
Dear Members
IESM
delegation of five members met RM Sh Manohar Parrikar today at 1400 h.
The salient points of the issues discussed in the meeting are given
below and are attached. I am sure this will satisfy most of the queries
of veterans arising out of budget speech given on 28 Feb 15. This is now
clear that one needs to be optimistic and OROP will be out soon.
However hold your celebrations till Notification of OROP is out as there
is many a slip between the cup and the lip.
Meeting of IESM Delegation with RM Sh Manohar Parrikar on 2 Mar 2015
IESM contacted Sh Manohar Parrikar Raksha Mantri at the end
of the budget presented on 28 Feb 15 and communicated to him that ESM in
general are disappointed because OROP has not been mentioned in the budget
speech of Finance Minister and allocation of funds for OROP has not been
announced. RM explained on telephone that OROP has been approved in two budgets
and hence it is considered approved and therefore there was no need to mention
in the budget speech. He was kind enough to invite the IESM delegation at 1400h
on 2 March 15 to clear any doubts if we had any.
Following five members of IESM met Sh Manohar Parrikar RM at
1400h on Monday 2 March 2015.
- Maj Gen Satbir Singh SM
- Col Kirit Joshipura
- Col Anil kaul VrC
- Wg Cdr CK Sharma
- Gp Capt VK Gandhi VSM
- Major DP Singh was also invited by RM for discussion on disability pension issue.
RM made everyone comfortable in the beginning itself that
OROP for Armed Forces and Ex-servicemen is NDA Government’s commitment and he
has worked out the expenditure for the OROP. He advised that there was no need
to cover this issue in budget presented by NDA Government on 28 Feb 15 as it already stands approved by Parliament as
part of budget for financial year 14-15. He confirmed that he had discussed the
issue with officers of MOD and ironed out all issues of OROP. He also confirmed
that OROP is genuine demand of Armed Forces and must be met in full; hence
there is no difference in thinking of Armed Forces and MOD. Accordingly file
has been prepared and is in process for approval from Ministry of Finance.
After approval of the file from Finance Minister, it will be put up for
approval of CCPA (Cabinet Committee for Political Affairs). RM has confirmed
that MOD has recommended giving OROP for X group and Y group separately. He
also confirmed that all ranks including widows have been included in the OROP.
He further confirmed that he is attempting to meet the date line for issuance
of Government letter (OROP Notification) given by him on 1 Feb 15 meeting with
IESM delegation.
There was no doubt left in our minds after such a clear
statement by RM and IESM delegation was convinced that OROP is now in safe
hands will see the day light soon. General Satbir Singh thanked him and told
him that it is first time that the demands of ESM are being given proper
consideration and attention. IESM delegation then discussed following issues
with RM.
- Increase in Widow’s pension w.e.f 24 Sep 12; General Satbir Singh informed him that widow’s pension was not increased in 2012 when pension for all ranks was increased as per recommendations of 6 CPC. Widows must be given that increase in pension. RM expressed concerned on this issue and asked the delegation to give him the note for his consideration.
- Major’s Pension Retired pre 1996; It was brought to RM’s attention that MOD is not paying Lt Col pension to Major rank officers who retired pre 1996 on completion of 21 years of service. Major Thomas of pre 1996 retirement had gone won the case in AFT and had been paid enhanced pension. It should be applicable for all Majors who had retired pre 1996 and had completed 21 years of service. RM asked for a detailed note on the issue for his consideration.
- Major’s Pension who had retired on completion of 20 yrs but with less than 21 yrs of service; RM was informed that there will be only few hundred Majors who will fall in that category and MOD must consider giving them Lt Col Pension with Major’s grade pay as a special case. RM demanded a paper on this issue also for his consideration.
IESM will be sending the detailed paper on above issues to
RM at the earliest.
IESM delegation was encouraged with the response and
encouragement given by RM. One can now say that OROP is in safe hands will soon
be approved.
Regards
Gp Capt VK Gandhi VSM
Gen Sec IESM
Flat no 801, Tower N5
Gen Sec IESM
Flat no 801, Tower N5
Narmada Apartments
Pocket D6
Vasant Kunj
Nelson Mandela Marg
New Delhi. 110070
Mobile 09810541222
New Delhi. 110070
Mobile 09810541222
Defence budget hike not for OROP, veterans cry foul
CHANDIGARH:
A day after Union finance minister Arun Jaitley presented the Budget in
the Parliament, defence veterans' hopes for 'achhe din' turned into
sheer ache. Hoping for an announcement from the FM on the one rank one
pension (OROP) scheme, they were an anguished lot on Sunday as they
realized that the increase in defence allocation was just good enough to
take care of the inflation factor.
Those who had pinned their hopes on minister of state for information and broadcasting Rajya Vardhan Singh Rathore's tweet on Saturday that Rs 8,300 crore for OROP was included in the Rs 22,000-crore increase in the defence allocation were also disappointed to know that the hike would only defuse the inflation element.
Experts in defence accounts department said the Budget announced 10.95% hike in the defence allocation as compared to the previous year, which would be spent on ration, salaries, allowances and procurement of equipments and weaponry. They claimed that the hike has nothing to do with the implementation of OROP, which requires around Rs 8,000 crore.
Also, in 2014-15 Budget, the increase in allocation was 12.75% more than 2013-14.
"It seems the politicians are doing a 'double speak' to hoodwink the gullible faujis," said defence veterans.
The statement made by the finance minister after the Budget that the issue of OROP is pending as the method of calculating pension is stuck between the armed services and the defence ministry has added to the retired personnel's woes.
Brig K S Kahlon (retd), President of All India Defence Brotherhood (Punjab), said the "entire drama" since Saturday shows that the government has not taken OROP issue seriously and it is making another attempt to delay it. "Pulse of the veterans is that they should unite together again and protest on the roads against the government till the OROP is not implemented," he said.
"I have never seen such ambiguity on an issue even the Prime Minister had promised. If they don't have any funds, they can issue bonds but maintaining silence frustrates and demoralizes the veterans," said Air Marshal Randhir Singh (retd). http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/
Those who had pinned their hopes on minister of state for information and broadcasting Rajya Vardhan Singh Rathore's tweet on Saturday that Rs 8,300 crore for OROP was included in the Rs 22,000-crore increase in the defence allocation were also disappointed to know that the hike would only defuse the inflation element.
Experts in defence accounts department said the Budget announced 10.95% hike in the defence allocation as compared to the previous year, which would be spent on ration, salaries, allowances and procurement of equipments and weaponry. They claimed that the hike has nothing to do with the implementation of OROP, which requires around Rs 8,000 crore.
Also, in 2014-15 Budget, the increase in allocation was 12.75% more than 2013-14.
"It seems the politicians are doing a 'double speak' to hoodwink the gullible faujis," said defence veterans.
The statement made by the finance minister after the Budget that the issue of OROP is pending as the method of calculating pension is stuck between the armed services and the defence ministry has added to the retired personnel's woes.
Brig K S Kahlon (retd), President of All India Defence Brotherhood (Punjab), said the "entire drama" since Saturday shows that the government has not taken OROP issue seriously and it is making another attempt to delay it. "Pulse of the veterans is that they should unite together again and protest on the roads against the government till the OROP is not implemented," he said.
"I have never seen such ambiguity on an issue even the Prime Minister had promised. If they don't have any funds, they can issue bonds but maintaining silence frustrates and demoralizes the veterans," said Air Marshal Randhir Singh (retd). http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/
The great betrayal on OROP front
During his interview after the Budget speech, the Union finance
minister, when asked about the fate of “one rank, one pension” (OROP)
for the defence personnel, remarked that modalities were being worked
out between the defence services and the Ministry of Defence (MoD). He
went on to say that he had given an additional 12.5% to the defence
budget, giving the impression that he had done great personnel favour to
the defence services. He does not appear to know how far removed are
the Indian defence forces from the state-of-the-art weapon systems and
how long has it been crying for modernisation.
Surely he would know that this additional amount for the defence budget, as such, has no link with OROP, because pensions for the defence personnel do not flow out of the defence budget. This additional allocation barely covers inflation in the cost of defence equipment. In the remaining Budget, there is no allocation of funds for OROP.
Soldiers at disadvantageThe demand for OROP has been pending for well over two decades. The rationale for this demand has been articulated umpteen times. More than 80% of the soldiers retire between the age of 34 and 36, and the remaining 20% at varying ages, with only 0.2% retiring at 60, when all the central services employees retire. Early retirement and extremely limited avenues for career advancement (promotions) place the defence personnel at great disadvantage vis-Ã -vis their counterparts in the civil services.
This early retirement places defence personnel at great financial disadvantage and takes its toll on them in way of shortening their lives: of both officers and soldiers, notwithstanding the fact that on retirement, they are physically much fitter in every respect compared with their civilian counterparts. The average life expectancy of the officers is 72.5, of the JCOs is 67, and of the soldiers is 64. These are figures from the Institute of Applied Research and Manpower (IARM). The life expectancy figure for civil servants is 77 years. The Railways, in their study, arrived at a figure of 78.
This issue of the shortening life of soldiers was raised in Parliament and the-then defence minister (the present President and supreme commander of the Indian forces) had stated that it would be examined in detail. Those were his famous words!
Babus flummox defence ministerThe demand for OROP became all the more strident when the civilian counterparts granted to themselves what is called non-functional upgrade (NFU). Simply stated, it implies that that their pay and allowances will have no relation to their job content but only to the length of the service; and that their advancement in career will have no bearing on the availability of higher posts and performance.
Political parties have repeatedly been promising the grant of OROP. Narendra Modi, as prime ministerial candidate of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), during his election rally at Rewari had promised that on coming to power, his party would announce OROP. Later, speaking to the troops in Siachen as Prime Minister, he said he had granted them this benefit.
More recently, the defence minister has been giving all manner of assurances to veterans, assurances which include specific dates when the case would be finalised and forwarded to the Finance Ministry: well before the Budget date.
Now it appears that the MoD has not been able to resolve the modalities for working out the details. Obliviously, the babus in the MoD have flummoxed the defence minister successfully and made him cut a sorry figure before the nation’s veterans.
Today’s soldiers tomorrow’s veteransNeither the PM and nor the DM appears to realise that there exists a very strong bond between the veterans and the serving troops. Today’s soldiers are tomorrow’s veterans, and this betrayal on part of the government cannot go unnoticed by them, and will impact their morale surely.
The government’s general lack of sensitivity to the disadvantages of military service and the consequent disinterest of suitable youth in joining the defence services has led to both fall in standards on one part and a huge shortage in the officer cadre. The nations that do not send the better lot to the defence services will one day suffer the consequences.
Finally, a quote from Phillip Mason, ICS, would be appropriate in the present setting. While commenting on India’s dismal war record, he notes in his book, “A Matter of Honour”, that: “Indian disadvantage lay in the nature of organisations of armies and, in the end, in politics and the kind of governments that had grown up in India.” One may venture to ask, if the state of affairs are any different today?gen_harwant@hotmail.com
(The writer is a former deputy chief of the army staff and an expert on defence matters. The views expressed are personal)
http://www.hindustantimes.com/chandigarh/the-great-betrayal-on-orop
Surely he would know that this additional amount for the defence budget, as such, has no link with OROP, because pensions for the defence personnel do not flow out of the defence budget. This additional allocation barely covers inflation in the cost of defence equipment. In the remaining Budget, there is no allocation of funds for OROP.
Soldiers at disadvantageThe demand for OROP has been pending for well over two decades. The rationale for this demand has been articulated umpteen times. More than 80% of the soldiers retire between the age of 34 and 36, and the remaining 20% at varying ages, with only 0.2% retiring at 60, when all the central services employees retire. Early retirement and extremely limited avenues for career advancement (promotions) place the defence personnel at great disadvantage vis-Ã -vis their counterparts in the civil services.
This early retirement places defence personnel at great financial disadvantage and takes its toll on them in way of shortening their lives: of both officers and soldiers, notwithstanding the fact that on retirement, they are physically much fitter in every respect compared with their civilian counterparts. The average life expectancy of the officers is 72.5, of the JCOs is 67, and of the soldiers is 64. These are figures from the Institute of Applied Research and Manpower (IARM). The life expectancy figure for civil servants is 77 years. The Railways, in their study, arrived at a figure of 78.
This issue of the shortening life of soldiers was raised in Parliament and the-then defence minister (the present President and supreme commander of the Indian forces) had stated that it would be examined in detail. Those were his famous words!
Babus flummox defence ministerThe demand for OROP became all the more strident when the civilian counterparts granted to themselves what is called non-functional upgrade (NFU). Simply stated, it implies that that their pay and allowances will have no relation to their job content but only to the length of the service; and that their advancement in career will have no bearing on the availability of higher posts and performance.
Political parties have repeatedly been promising the grant of OROP. Narendra Modi, as prime ministerial candidate of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), during his election rally at Rewari had promised that on coming to power, his party would announce OROP. Later, speaking to the troops in Siachen as Prime Minister, he said he had granted them this benefit.
More recently, the defence minister has been giving all manner of assurances to veterans, assurances which include specific dates when the case would be finalised and forwarded to the Finance Ministry: well before the Budget date.
Now it appears that the MoD has not been able to resolve the modalities for working out the details. Obliviously, the babus in the MoD have flummoxed the defence minister successfully and made him cut a sorry figure before the nation’s veterans.
Today’s soldiers tomorrow’s veteransNeither the PM and nor the DM appears to realise that there exists a very strong bond between the veterans and the serving troops. Today’s soldiers are tomorrow’s veterans, and this betrayal on part of the government cannot go unnoticed by them, and will impact their morale surely.
The government’s general lack of sensitivity to the disadvantages of military service and the consequent disinterest of suitable youth in joining the defence services has led to both fall in standards on one part and a huge shortage in the officer cadre. The nations that do not send the better lot to the defence services will one day suffer the consequences.
Finally, a quote from Phillip Mason, ICS, would be appropriate in the present setting. While commenting on India’s dismal war record, he notes in his book, “A Matter of Honour”, that: “Indian disadvantage lay in the nature of organisations of armies and, in the end, in politics and the kind of governments that had grown up in India.” One may venture to ask, if the state of affairs are any different today?gen_harwant@hotmail.com
(The writer is a former deputy chief of the army staff and an expert on defence matters. The views expressed are personal)
http://www.hindustantimes.com/chandigarh/the-great-betrayal-on-orop
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)