Bureaucracy deny veterans their due? A second struggle for OROP revision by ESM all over the country is in the offing

 

In a letter dated 5 April, addressed to the Directorate of Ex-servicemen Welfare of the Ministry of Defence (MoD), the Comptroller General of Defence Accounts (CGDA), a part of the same ministry, has queried the logic of initiating the One Rank One Pension revision due on 1 July after directions were issued by the government.
The directions of the government on the grant of OROP to military veterans stated this would be equated every five years. The last equation was done with the base of 1 July 2014. Para 3 (a) of the CGDA letter states, “Whether there is any logic to initiate process of OROP revision (equalization) once the pension of past and current pensioners has been equated on 01 Jan 16 by the 7th Pay commission.”
This seems a case of creating confusion where none should have existed. The 7th Pay commission and OROP have nothing in common, nor were they even linked. The pay commission only revises existing salaries and pensions on a common factor, whereas OROP is meant to equate pensions of earlier retirees with present ones.
Revision and equating are vastly different and done in different timeframes. Revision as per the dictionary means ‘correction/ alteration’, whereas equating means to make ‘uniform or equal’. The CGDA seeks to create confusion by mixing up the two words. The defence minister was convinced by his bureaucracy to establish a committee to work out modalities and method of next revision of pensions under OROP.
It is surprising that he was not told the difference between revision and equation and its impact on pensions. The CGDA letter suggests a preconceived mindset of the bureaucracy aimed at delaying and denying rightful dues to veterans. While the letter innocently seeks clarification on the procedure for implementation of OROP, methodology for which formed the basis of the last OROP equation, its wording hints that OROP should not be granted as the pay commission does the needful at regular intervals.
The CGDA is the same organization which three years after the implementation of the pay commission has been unable to fix anomalies in salaries which arose in its wake. It also seeks to offer this as justification to delay equating pensions. In any private organisation, such incompetence would have meant sacking of the top hierarchy, but the MoD defends and accepts it. Will the new rules laid down by the Prime Minister of inefficient bureaucrats being given ‘pink slips’ also apply to the CGDA? If it does, then multiple heads should roll.
There have been many cases in the past when the CGDA has denied rightful pensions to martyrs and war veterans on flimsy grounds, compelling them to approach courts for justice. Nirmala Sitharaman, as defence minister, had on occasions promised to stop fighting wasteful cases of pensions in court, yet the organisation has not reformed.
A recent case is most appalling. The case began in December 1999, when militancy was rising in the valley. An operation to flush out militants, infiltrated into an army unit in Baramulla, was launched. In the conduct of the operations, the company commander was injured in the thigh by a bullet fired by a militant from close range. He survived, but the bullet damaged his nerves leading to a paralysis of his left leg.
The officer, a battle casualty, continued to serve with the injury and is now nearing retirement. His case for grant of war injury pension due to him as a battle casualty was sanctioned by Army HQs and sent to Principal Controller of Defence Accounts, (PCDA) Pensions, a part of the CGDA, in April this year. It was a simple case and should have been cleared. However, bureaucratic blocks began appearing.
PCDA Pensions questioned Army HQs (vide their letter of 12 June this year), stating that unless additional documents including proceedings of the court of inquiry conducted in 1999, injury report and charter of duties of that period were not submitted, the case could not be processed. It has refused to accept that the officer was declared and served as a battle casualty since 1999. For the bureaucrats serving in the CGDA, the injury suffered and difficulties experienced through life by that officer have no relevance.
If the authority to declare war injury pension to an individual is that of Army HQs, which does so after detailed scrutiny of records and analysis of the incident, then does it require another bureaucratic institution to conduct its own inquiry at the time of the individual being released from service, 20 years later? What would the PCDA gain by examining these documents? With a new defence minister sworn in, the bureaucracy and its offshoots have begun playing games once again.
They have tried to mislead the defence minister and the nation by confusing equation and revision of pensions and in the bargain seeking to block release of OROP which was granted after a prolonged agitation by veterans. Are these actions a case of testing waters as the new defence minister settles in? The defence minister should not have been misled and compelled by his advisors to order setting up of a committee but instead given a simple direction to implement government orders.
Unless the defence minister acts firmly, by either sacking the hierarchy of the CGDA for its failure to resolve anomalies even after three years, or for questioning government decisions, he would only face stumbling blocks throughout his tenure. He needs to send the right message immediately. The question is, will he?

Rajnath forms committee to work on modalities of revising pension under OROP

 

Defence Minister Rajnath Singh has constituted a committee to work out the modalities and methodology of the implementation of next revision of pension under One Rank One Pension (OROP), the Ministry said in a statement on Friday.
"Defence Minister Rajnath Singh reviewed the working of DESW including the welfare schemes being extended to the ex-servicemen, widows and dependents. A committee was also constituted today to work out the modalities and methodology of the implementation of the next revision of pension under OROP," the statement said.

All three services will have their representation in the committee which will give its report within a month.
According to the statement, the Defence Minister was briefed by various officials.
"In a free-flowing interaction, Minister expressed his general satisfaction but also gave certain directions to the department and sought a response in a time-bound manner," the statement said.

AN OPEN LETTER TO DEFENCE MINISTER BY BISWASDA, VICE CHAIRMAN, JCO/ORS VETERANS WELFARE ASSOCIATION OF INDIA

Sri Rajnath Singh.                                            

Defence Minister of India.
                               

                                                                        

Through: PA to Defence Minister.                       

                                                                             13 June 2019

Sir,

I, on behalf of millions of Ex-servicemen and their families of India congratulate you for adorning the prestigious mantle of Defence Minister of India. We feel that after multiple changes on the important post of Defence Minister in the previous government, the new government on its onset has put the baton to the able and strong hands of an ironman. We admire you as a man of principle, who has in-depth knowledge and insight into Defence preparedness of India as well as the problems of serving men and Ex-servicemen.

Sir, from the viewpoint of an ex-serviceman may I be allowed to raise a few concerns of ex-servicemen and veer naris  which are listed below. These are the concerns of the serving soldiers as well, as today's serving soldier would be tomorrow's ex-serviceman.

1.  OROP Revision: 

The last government implemented OROP with effect from 01.07.2014 and notified in clear terms that OROP be revised after every five years. The revision of OROP ought to be implemented  automatically from 01.07.2019. But sadly, no preparatory work could be initiated by Controller General of Defence Accounts (CGDA) for want of policy direction from Ministry of Defence.

Sir, as per the reply I received from CGDA (by my RTI application), CGDA has raised multiple queries to Ministry of Defence about the modality of implementation, the base year of calculation etc, for which they are yet to get any reply. In such a situation the OROP revision is heading for an indefinite delay.

2. One Man Judicial Commission Report:

Sir, I do not want to elaborate on the constitution of OMJC and subsequent fate of its report in the hands of high level scrutiny committee. The report still remains under examination and none of us know why is it delayed indefinitely. I understand that the Government has every right to accept or reject a commission report. But if some of the recommendations of the OMJC are accepted by the Government, it is logical that they should be reflected in the revision of OROP. Keeping the report under a wrap will only complicate the whole process.

3.  Multiple Court Cases:

Sir, I regret to mention that in many occasions ex-servicemen had to knock at the doors of a Court of Law to get their rightful dues. And even after getting a favourable judgment, the benefits were extended to the litigants only and no universal orders / notifications were issued by the authority to extend the benefit to similar cases. Sir, is it possible by thousands and thousands of affected ex-servicemen spread over the rural areas of our country to seek remedy from a court of law?

4. Equal MSP:

Sir, Military Service Pay was introduced by VI Pay Commission. By definition this benefit was extended to all jawans, officers and MNS (Military Nursing Service) considering the rigour and dangerous service conditions of military service. The VII pay commission also recognized this and recommended MSP as a unique element of pay for defence services. Now all JCOs and other ranks get equal MSP irrespective of their rank or basic pay.

But there exists wide difference in the quantum of MSP among jawans, MNS and Officers. A personnel in MNS, who is never exposed to any combat duty or any dangerous situation gets almost double the amount received by a jawan. An officer gets almost three times more than a jawan. It is an irony that a jawan who is at the forefront of war or war-like situation and who is in the first line of enemies' and terrorists' fire gets the least MSP. Respective Pay Commissions overlooked this great anomaly and the Government never stepped in to correct it.

Sir, these are the major concerns of ex-serviceman community. There is growing indignation amongst ex-servicemen that every political party swear by the patriotism of Armed Forces, but when it comes to the welfare and benefit of its personnel, the government often buckles under the pressure of civilian bureaucracy  and deny them of their rightful dues.

Sir, we strongly believe and hope that with the fine acumen of a strong administrator like you most of the above anomalies will be rectified soon.

Jai Hind.                                                                   

                                                                                         

Yours Faithfully 
Manananda Biswas
Vice Chairman,
JCO/ORS Veterans Welfare
Association of India

                                                                                         

RTI REPLY RECEIVED BY BISWASDA REGARDING OROP REVISION

CSD NEW 4 WHEELER ENTITLEMENT

MACP is entitled from the date of completion of 10/20/30 years and not from 01.09.2008 - Delhi High Court Order

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELID

W.P.(C) 3549/2018

SUNIL KUMAR TYAGI		..... Petitioner
	Through:	Ms. Asha Jain Madan, Advocate with Mr. Mukesh Jain, Advocate.
	versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR		..... Respondents
	Through:	Ms Archana Gaur and Ms Ridhima Gaur, Advocates for UOI.

CORAM:

JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR

JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA

O R D E R

01.05.2019

1. There are three prayers in this writ petition - one is for a direction to the Respondents to grant the Petitioner the benefit of the first Assured Career Progression ('ACP') Scheme with effect from October, 1999, when the Petitioner had actually completed 12 years of service instead of 30th December, 2000. The second is that the benefit of the MACP should be granted with effect from October, 2007 (instead of 1'1 September, 2008), when the Petitioner completed 20 years of service. The third prayer is that the benefit of the MACP should be given by placing the Petitioner in the scale of Sub Inspector ('SI') i.e. Rs.5500-9000 (pre-revised).

2. As far as the first prayer is concerned, the same has already been granted by the Respondents to the Petitioner. As far as the second prayer is concerned, the issue is covered in favour of the Petitioner by the judgment dated 8th December, 2017 of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Balbir Singh Turn (2018) I I SCC 99. The Supreme Court has in the above judgment clarified that the benefit of the MACP which was on the basis of the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission to be extended with effect from 1st January, 2006 and not from 1st September, 2008, as was directed by the Respondents.

3. As regards the fixing of the correct pay scale of the Petitioner, it is seen that in BSF/General Duty, there is no post of ASI/General Duty in the pay scale of Rs.4000-100-6000 (pre-revised) which had been converted into Pay Band-I i.e. 5200-20200 in the grade pay of Rs.2800 having pay band of 8560 with the total pay (basic pay) of Rs.11360. Thus, in the case of the Petitioner, the second financial upgradation was required to be given in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 (pre-revised). Since this was not granted to other similarly placed as the Petitioner, writ petitions were filed in this Court. A series of judgments have been passed by this Court in those writ petitions, as a result of which the Respondents extended the benefit of financial upgradation in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 to all personnel who had completed 24 years of regular service during the period 9th August, 1999 to 31st August, 2008.

4. The counter affidavit of the Respondents does not dispute the applicability of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v Balbir Singh Turn (supra) or the applicability of the other orders of this Court, including the order dated 18th December, 2015 in W.P.(C) No.11725 (Digamber Singh ASI v UOI) concerning the appropriate pay scale for the purposes of grant of the MACP benefits.

5. Consequently, this Court directs as under:

1. The Petitioner would be given the benefit of the MACP with effect from October, 2007 instead of 1st September, 2008; and
2. The above benefit will be given by placing the Petitioner in the pay scale of of Sub Inspector i.e. 5500-9000 (pre-revised).
3. The appropriate orders will be issued and the arrears will be paid to the Petitioner within a period of 12 weeks from today, failing which the Respondents will be liable to pay simple interest @ 6% per annum on the arrears for the period of delay.

6. The petition is disposed of in above terms. No costs.

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

I.S.MEHTA, J.

MAY 01, 2019

OROP CASE INTIRIUM ORDER BY SUPREME COURT

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

 Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 419/2016 

 INDIAN EX SERVICEMEN MOVEMENT & ORS. Petitioner(s) 

VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s)

 (WITH IA 33253/2017 FOR AMENDMENT OF WRIT PETITION) Date : 01-05-2019 

This petition was called on for hearing today.

 CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD 

 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
 During the course of the hearing, the principal submission of the petitioners is that the recommendation of the Koshyari Committee for thegrant of One Rank One Pension (OROP) was endorsed by the Budgetary Speech of the Finance Minister on 17 February 2014 and by the Minister of Defence on 26 February 2014, following which the Controller General of Defence Accounts was directed to work out modalities. This was further re-affirmed on 10 July 2014 by the Finance Minister and on 2 December 2014 by the Minister of State for Defence. However, the Union government, on 7 November 2015, while implementing OROP adopted a modified definition of the expression under which the gap between the rates of pension of current and past pensioners would be bridged at“periodic intervals”. The petitioners have highlighted specifically three aspects of the anomalies which have arisen. They are summarised in a written note of submissions tendered before the Court, which is extracted below: “(i) 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 (pre 2014) getting less pension of one increment than the soldier retiring after 2014. (ii) Fixation of pension as mean of Min and Max pension: Fixing pension as mean of Min and Max pension of 2013 would result different pensions for the same ranks and same length of service and the past retiree would get 1.5 increment lesser on account of such fixation.For example, if 8(i) and (ii) are implemented, two soldiers who have served for same length of years, holding the same rank will draw different pension. A Sepoy (Group Y) who retired prior to 31 Dec2013 will get Rs.6665 p.m. and another Sepoy (Group Y) who retired on and after 1 Jan 2014 would get Rs 7605 p.m. Further, on account of such implementation, a higher rank Naik soldier who retired before 31 Dec 2013 would draw a lesser pension of rs.7170p.m., than a junior rank Sepoy who retired after 1 Jan 2014 as his pension would be Rs.7605. This fact is illustrated by a tabular chart which is enclosed. (See Pg.1, CC). Therefore, implementation of this new definition of OROP defeats the very principle of OROP by creating a class within a class of the same officers, which in practice tantamounts to one rank different pensions. This is also contrary to the judgment by this Hon’ble Court in Union of India v SPS Vains, (2008) 9 SCC 125. Another fallacy in the new definition of OROP which detracts from the principle of OROP is: (iii) Pension Equalization every five years: It is submitted that Pension equalization every five years would result in the grave disadvantage to the past retirees.” Certain concrete examples have been indicated in charts which are annexed to the note submitted before this Court by Mr Huzefa Ahmadi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. At this stage, we are of the considered view that it would be appropriate if the Union government scrutinizes the grievances which are placed before the Court in the above note. It would be appropriate and in the interest of justice if these concerns, which have been expressed on behalf of personnel, who have served the nation as members of the Armed Forces of the Union before retirement, are duly considered by the Union government at an appropriate level. We would expect the government to seriously consider the grievances and to determine whether and, if so, to what extent, justice canbe provided for the satisfaction of all concerned.
 List the Writ Petition on 6 August 2019.
 (SANJAY KUMAR-I) AR-CUM-PS
 (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) COURT MASTER