Thursday, 24 December 2020
Wednesday, 23 December 2020
Military not responsible for pension burden
Former South Western Army Commander
Defence pension is once again in the media glare. A false narrative is being created that it has grown astronomically in the Ministry of Defence (MoD) as compared to other ministries. This narrative, different from the ground reality, is causing great concern to serving soldiers and the veteran fraternity.
Pensionary benefits for the armed forces personnel are far less than other government employees as soldiers retire at the prime of their youth, resulting in shorter spans of service for pension. Their counterparts, in contrast, have much longer lengths of service for pension. This is also attributed to the special privilege of non-functional grade and assured career progression, resulting in much higher pension than soldiers. The fact is that the military receives the lowest per capita pension amongst all government functionaries.
The total number of pensioners was 51.96 lakh as on January 1, 2014, as per the data from the Seventh Pay Commission report — 33.36 lakh civil pensioners and 18.6 lakh defence ones. The real concern is the pension of other government employees and not the armed forces. Civil servants serve up to 60 years and comparatively attain higher positions than most soldiers and more attractive pay package. The narrative about soldiers emptying the coffers needs to be challenged with facts and figures, not hearsay.
Another revealing fact is that more than a third of the defence pension allocated in the MoD caters to over half a million civil defence employees. The remaining two-thirds is for the military.
This raises another pertinent issue of a compelling need to have half a million other government employees in the MoD to maintain 1.3 million military personnel. The subject of teeth to tail ratio only focuses on the reduction of uniformed personnel and there is never a discussion on cutting down this flab in the MoD. Whenever this issue is raised, it is overlooked because of obstacles and protests by the unions concerned.
The government is faced with an increased pension burden for the retired defence forces personnel who are still in their prime of youth and have always exhibited a will to sacrifice their youth for the motherland and have no platform to voice their concerns. Rehabilitating these trained young personnel who are too young to take total retirement from all work is the responsibility of the government to keep them motivated. Keeping the armed forces young is essential for national security and defence services have an important role to play in this but it is not the sole responsibility of the armed forces to maintain a young profile as also to keep the pension budget under control.
It is important to remember that recommendations of the parliamentary committee and various pay commissions regarding the absorption of armed forces personnel after their military service into various government organisations where their unique skills, training and discipline can be optimally used, have been mostly ignored by successive governments, mainly on account of bureaucratic hurdles and sustained obstructions in the ministries.
The straight response for the reduction in pension expenditure is to implement recommendations of the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Pay Commissions, AV Singh Committee and Koshyari Committee for the lateral shift of young, trained and disciplined manpower proceeding on pension from our defence forces to other organisations and expand the concept of short service commission by making it more attractive, another viable proposal pending with the government for a long time.
Outside the borders of India, armed forces personnel, after their military engagement, are absorbed in civil government organisations, including the police in many countries. These include China and other advanced economies like South Korea, Singapore, Israel, Switzerland, and the United States. The Sixth Pay Commission has also recommended that there is adequate potential to allow lateral shift of nearly all defence forces personnel to the CAPFs and various cadres of defence civilians.
There is need to find ingenious and practical ways of addressing the issue of defence pension at a national level rather than aiming for resolution at departmental levels by the defence services within their own means.
Since increasing defence pension is a cause of concern, armed forces have been contemplating ways to optimise engagement of its personnel by increasing the number of years they serve. Measures like the feasibility of increasing the retirement age of soldiers are under consideration. A change in the age or manpower profile, though definitely possible to some extent, will have a direct impact on national security. Therefore, there is need for a resolution of this challenge at the national level for a long-term solution rather than only the three services addressing this challenge at the departmental level.
Over a period of time, the Defence Budget has gradually reduced in terms of percentage of GDP despite facing two hostile nuclear neighbours with whom we have unsettled border issues and they are always endeavouring to create new challenges for us. It has sunk to just about two per cent which is lowest amongst contemporary countries. This low allocation results in an unrealistic allocation for capital expenses. This has resulted in resorting to emergency purchases in times of crisis for our essential weapon and equipment whenever there has been a major terror attack or border clash. Keeping in view the threat perception and security challenges, recommended expenditure of a minimum three per cent of GDP on defence is essential and with that allocation, apparently things fall in place.
The figures about budgetary allocation for pension which are in the public domain indicate that the growth for both defence personnel and other government employees have shown an almost similar growth in the last decade. Therefore, the need for concern should not be restricted to military pension.
Pension for the military will reduce considerably if recommendations of the pay commissions and other committees about the lateral shift of soldiers retiring in their prime youth to other organisations and making the short service commission more attractive are implemented.
Monday, 21 December 2020
FILE PHOTOS FROM JOVA AGM MEETING HELD ON 20/12/2020
Senior Veteran & VOPian JWO Dr.P Murugesan Adressing the AGM
Sunday, 20 December 2020
EX-SERVICEMEN CONTRIBUTORY HEALTH SCHEME IS RETROGRADE AND DISCRIMINATORY DISCONTENTMENT AMONG EX-SERVICEMEN BREWS
The retired armed forces soldiers up to the rank of Havildars in the Army, Petty officers in the Navy,? and Sergeants in the Air Force, are openly expressing their resentment, & perhaps with good reason,? as they feel they have been discriminated against under the Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS).
Ex-Sgt Subramani also reiterated that the present day ex-servicemen belonging to the rank of Havildar & below and their spouse who are members of ECHS are educated and well informed, who constitute well over 70% of the total ECHS membership, have started debating amongst themselves regarding the retrograde and discriminatory policy of ECHS, which is degrading the status of NCOs and ORs in the public eye, by the authorities of the ECHS organization which comes under the Ministry of Defence.
However, the term Group-D employees of Central Govt. has been abolished and they are elevated and now referred to as Multi Task Staff (MTS) who come under Pay Band-1 with the basic salary 5200-20200, w.e.f. 01.01.2006 as per 6th Central Pay Commission according to Subramani.
Ex-Sgt Subramani claim that, his Trust has been constrained to take up the issue with Ministry of Defence and the Chiefs of the three forces & Managing Director of ECHS Organization, since VKET is flooded with innumerable representations from ECHS members who are Ex-havildars / Ex-Petty Officers / Ex-Sergeants, other ranks and their widows.
“It is surely incomprehensible why ex-servicemen up to the rank of Ex-Havildars and their equivalent in the IAF and the Navy are treated as second class citizens insofar as hospital admissions are concerned, as they are entitled only to the general wards on admission for treatment in ECHS empanelled private hospitals. The disparity with Group-D civilians of Central Govt. who are eligible for admission and treatment in Semi Special Ward under CGHS is lamentable.
Subramani who is a retired Senior Non Commissioned Officer of Indian Air Force opined that, it is surely sickening when one considers the trials & tribulations that the ordinary soldier faces during his service, & then again on his retirement a similar fate befalls him, as he is yet again prejudiced. The ECHS organization surely shouldnt grudge if its medical reimbursement bill to the desolate ex-servicemen creeps up to any extent, as the ex-servicemen community under NCOs ranks is not that very humongous that the ECHS Budget cannot absorb them by plugging the loopholes which may exist in health scheme itself!
The discriminatory eligibility policy:
The learned policy makers in ECHS organisation while formulating the policy on ECHS deliberately brought in the concept of Grade Pay?and the?Rank Structure. It is needless to mention that, Grade Pay is only an element of remuneration depending up on the rank structure in the Armed Forces which was not in existence prior to 31.12.1995 as per 4th Central Pay Commission.
Why the concept of Basic Pay?is not considered as the bench mark for eligibility of different wards in the hospital under ECHS as it is considered under CGHS since, Basic Pay alone taken into account as bench mark for all purposes, such as for calculation of Dearness Allowances, House Rent Allowances, City Compensatory Allowances etc is a question that begs an answer, Subramani said and further added “there was nothing called ‘Grade Pay’ paid to those retired armed forces personnel prior to 31.12.1995” irrespective of any rank i.e. from Sepoy to General officers while they were in forces.
The ill-conceived dual concept, Grade Pay for initial contribution w.e.f. 01.01.1996 which was again revised upward w.e.f. 01.09.2009 to become a member of ECHS and the Rank Structure for eligibility of different wards in ECHS empanelled private hospitals as the bench marks, has subtly been included to deny the eligibility of admission and treatment in the Semi Special Ward for non commissioned officers and their spouses / widows and family members who constitute well over 70% of the total strength of ECHS membership Ex-Sgt Subramani said, and reiterated that this dual concept of Grade Pay and rank structure concept is not only discriminatory but also aimed at belittling the NCOs & the combatant soldiers below Havildars rank, who are forced to retire at a very young age, i.e.,? between the age group of 33 to 38 years and to fend for themselves with their meager pension.
He also opined and in agreement that no ECHS member should / would have any grouse if Sepoys / NCOs are admitted and treated in general wards, JCOs in Semi Special wards & Officers in Private or Deluxe Wards, as per their rank structure, on their admission in any Military Hospital, so as to maintain the services protocol. Subramani also added that regimentation is all very fine while in active service to maintain discipline and decorum in the forces, but to extend the same rationale after retirement is fallacious, and quipped as the term ex-servicemen includes from the rank of Ex-Sepoy to retired General officers for all purposes including ECHS except for pension.
Subramani also cites another area of contention in the ECHS policy, wherein retired Generals to Sepoys, who retired prior to 01.01.1996, are totally exempted from the initial ECHS contribution and forgo the monthly Fixed Medical Allowances?of Rs. 300/- per month from their pension, on becoming members of ECHS. This again defies logic, as under the principles of natural justice every ex-servicemen should be treated on par, & especially more so when the scheme in itself is contributory in nature.?
He also opined that since the scheme is contributory in nature, any ex-servicemen who wishes to enroll himself as a member of ECHS, should be given an option, wherein on payment of a initial pre-designated contribution / fee w.e.f. 01.01.1996 at the time of becoming the ECHS member, he can gain admission into the special ward or private ward or general ward of an empanelled hospital, irrespective of the retired rank in the Armed Forces and grade pay. Needless to mention that, the initial contribution to become a member of ECHS has been exempted as per ECHS policy for all those ex-servicemen who retired prior to 31.12.1995 and their widows.
The sooner this contemptible policy is discarded the faster will the beleaguered ex-servicemen find relief & cheer. Surely the Indian armed forces owe it to the humble sepoy who sacrificed the prime of his life towards the service of the motherland in odd service conditions, whose grievance deserves to be treated with empathy. Will the Armed Forces settle this issue with alacrity? Subramani questioned and asserted as “Our Trust shall impress upon all the powers that be, to end this bias
