Veteran
AVM RP Mishra is a Member of the governing body of the IESL and has
been very active in this subject. A part of his letter is placed below
for your information.
"I had received a telephone call some days ago (7 Jan I think) from the Hon'ble Minister of Defence. He sought a clarification on a suggestion put up by the bureaucracy that instead of total service, it should be the service in the rank that should be a parameter for deciding OROP.
My clarification during the conversation was on the following lines:
1. The defence services have a complex structure with a number of different Arms/Services, ranks, Groups, Categories etc. No one formula can remove every single aberration in the over two million pensioners. When we stared the 'Movement', we had given detailed thought to the deciding of criteria. We chose 'total service' because this would give satisfaction to the maximum numbers.
2. Considering 'service in rank' would be unfair because the time of picking up a higher rank depends on many factors, that do not reflect on an individual's capabilities, nor are within his control. I cited the example of Infantry where different battalions in the same Regiment have a vast variation in the number of years taken to become a Naik, Havildar, JCO etc. Since they all retire after completing a uniformly equal length of service, it would be logical that the length of service should be the criterion.
3. Even among officers, for example, I was promoted Lt Col after completing 15 1/2 years of service, whereas my colleagues in some other Arms would have been considerably delayed as there were fewer vacancies. While deciding OROP at least the latter should get the benefit of equal pension.
4. The proposal of considering length of service in the rank would also have administrative difficulty. While total service is clearly visible in the PPO, service in the rank would need fresh calculations, thus leading to considerable delay in implementing OROP.
The Hon'ble Minister confirmed that he had understood the issue and would not accept the bureaucrats' recommendation.
I had also recommended that the stalled meetings of the Joint Working Group should be recommenced to iron out any other angularity and thus speed up implementation of OROP. This was agreed to.
I had shared the details of above conversation with concerned officials at the Army Headquarters so that the serving and the ESM speak with convergence on this subject.
I could gather that there is urgency on the part of the Defence Ministry to finalise and implement this vexed issue. When implemented, this would give benefit to all future generations of pensioners. "
AVM RP Mishra, Veteran
"I had received a telephone call some days ago (7 Jan I think) from the Hon'ble Minister of Defence. He sought a clarification on a suggestion put up by the bureaucracy that instead of total service, it should be the service in the rank that should be a parameter for deciding OROP.
My clarification during the conversation was on the following lines:
1. The defence services have a complex structure with a number of different Arms/Services, ranks, Groups, Categories etc. No one formula can remove every single aberration in the over two million pensioners. When we stared the 'Movement', we had given detailed thought to the deciding of criteria. We chose 'total service' because this would give satisfaction to the maximum numbers.
2. Considering 'service in rank' would be unfair because the time of picking up a higher rank depends on many factors, that do not reflect on an individual's capabilities, nor are within his control. I cited the example of Infantry where different battalions in the same Regiment have a vast variation in the number of years taken to become a Naik, Havildar, JCO etc. Since they all retire after completing a uniformly equal length of service, it would be logical that the length of service should be the criterion.
3. Even among officers, for example, I was promoted Lt Col after completing 15 1/2 years of service, whereas my colleagues in some other Arms would have been considerably delayed as there were fewer vacancies. While deciding OROP at least the latter should get the benefit of equal pension.
4. The proposal of considering length of service in the rank would also have administrative difficulty. While total service is clearly visible in the PPO, service in the rank would need fresh calculations, thus leading to considerable delay in implementing OROP.
The Hon'ble Minister confirmed that he had understood the issue and would not accept the bureaucrats' recommendation.
I had also recommended that the stalled meetings of the Joint Working Group should be recommenced to iron out any other angularity and thus speed up implementation of OROP. This was agreed to.
I had shared the details of above conversation with concerned officials at the Army Headquarters so that the serving and the ESM speak with convergence on this subject.
I could gather that there is urgency on the part of the Defence Ministry to finalise and implement this vexed issue. When implemented, this would give benefit to all future generations of pensioners. "
AVM RP Mishra, Veteran
