AZADI KA AMRIT MAHOTSAV

BHARAT MATA KI JAI- JAI HIND

BHARAT MATA KI JAI- JAI HIND

IESM SENDS LEGAL NOTICE TO SECRETARY DESW FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT

DEFENCE PENSION EXPENDITURE EXCLUDING DEFENCE CIVILIAN PENSION REQUESTED THROUGH RTI FROM CGDA

DEFENCE PENSION EXPEDITURE IS ALWAS SHOWN ALONG WITH EXPENDITURE OF DEFENCE CIVILIAN PENSIONERS WHY IS IT HIDDEN?

PENSIONERS OF SAME RANK MAY NOT FORM HOMOGENEOUS CLASS-- HSC

 The implication of the HSC findings in the OROP case is that pensioners of the same rank may not form a homogeneous class, which has created a new definition of OROP in addition to the one formulated by the Executive.

There appear to be four different definitions of OROP that the executive can use to suit their own sweet will.

The definition made by the Koshiyari committee

The definition made by Petitioners

The definition made by executive order.

The definition made by HSC

It is obvious that the definition as ordered by HSC supersedes the other definitions.

The executive is now not bound to refer to any of its earlier circulars on refixation.

Still, many people who declare themselves as the masters of the subject misguide others by referring to earlier circulars.

Please bear in mind that the term "OROP" is not found in any of the Pay Pension regulations of the three forces. It is not related to the defence pension regulation because it is a benefit bestowed outside of it. The courts can not intervene in this exicutive order unless any provisions of the same is challenged as discriminatory/arbitory. 

The most important implication of the assertion of the court that "pensioners of the same rank may not form a homogenious class" is that the court has confirmed that there is no infirmity in the principle of average of maximum and minimum to be adopted for refixation of OROP.

The main lacuna of the petition filed by the petitioners of WP(C) 419/2016 was that they did not challenge the original OROP Notification, instead they relied purely on the Koshyari Committee report and other political statements in and outside Parliament, which have no locus standi.

The petitioners even failed to mention the OROP anomaly commission, termed the OMJC. Another blunter by not taking up the same in Review Petition instead of pointing out Judges’ Pension Scheme. It was a scenario like a son asking his father if he got more and if he got less. They also failed to convince the court that the exicutive themselves have acknoledged the existance of anomalies in the notification,thus constituted a one one man judicial commission(OMJC) headed by a retired Judge. The Notification itself contains many contradictions regarding its objective.

Now it is better to reconcile with what we are going to get instead of  reading its horoscope &lamenting over a lost soul.

CONTEMPT PETITION FILED BY VOPIANS DIRECTLY TO CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA ALONGWITH REQUIRED DOCUMENTS