+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21

Thread: One rank one pension - pre 2006 pensioners

  1. #1
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Default One rank one pension - pre 2006 pensioners

    Dear Sirs, I happened to read a post of Shri S.K. Jain in staffcorner.com pensioners forum (of course I visited very late in December 14,2008 whereas the post is dated 17.10.2008 - Still the issue is live now also!)

    Best Regards,
    Sundarar.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    One Rank One Pension - pre 2006 Pensioners
    by SK Jain on Fri Oct 17, 2008 5:13 pm

    ONE RANK ONE PENSION (OROP)

    The demand of “One Rank One Pension (OROP)” has been raised time and again. But the successive pay commissions and the Governments have been shying away from this long outstanding demand of pensioners despite the fact that certain main political parties include this in their election manifestoes. This subject was also included in the President’s address to the Parliament in 2004 thereby making OROP the declared policy of Government (not of any particular political party).

    The concept of OROP implies that Government Employees, who have retired from the same post with same length of service, should get same amount of pension irrespective to their dates of retirements. 6th pay commission has discussed this issue vide Paras 5.1.46 & 5.1.47 (Pages 338 & 339) of its report. 6CPC has held that “The Fifth CPC extended full parity between pre & post 1/1/1986 pensioners and a modified parity between pre & post 1/1/1996 pensioners. In modified parity, it was provided that pension could, in no case, be less than 50% of the minimum of the corresponding Fifth CPC revised pay scale from which the pensioner has retired.”

    Accordingly, 6CPC has recommended as under: “the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired”. This recommendation has been accepted by the Government vide Resolution No. 12 and notified vide para 4.2 of Memorandum F No.38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated 1st September 08 in the same language. Thus, modified parity of pension between past pensioners and future pensioners has already been accepted and implemented by the Government.

    Here, difference between “OROP” and “Modified Parity” needs to be made clear. In OROP, pay of a pensioner is to be notionally fixed in the revised pay band based on his Last Pay Drawn and then his pension is to be re-fixed. In Modified Parity, minimum revised pay of the post last held by a pensioner should be ascertained and the pensioner should be paid 50% of this minimum revised pay as pension. There is no mention of 33 years qualifying service in Modified Parity either by the 6CPC or by the Government in the accepted Resolution.

    But clarifications issued vide F No 38/37/08 P&PW (A) Pt I dated 3rd October 08 have defeated the very concept of modified parity. For example, 7 existing pay scales (from S-9 to S-15) have been merged in the Pay band 2 (9300-34800). Minimum revised pay of an official, who has retired from pre-revised scale of 7450-225-11500 (S-13) shall be 18,457 (13857 in the pay band + 4600 grade pay). Accordingly, his minimum assured pension, in confirmation to the modified parity, should be 9228/- (50% of 18,457). But as per the clarifications dated 3rd October 08 his minimum assured pension shall be 6950/- (50% of 9300+4600). This minimum pension has been calculated at the minimum of the Pay Band and not at the minimum of his corresponding revised pay. Moreover, this minimum pension is to be reduced pro-rata where the pensioner had less than 33 years service. Ridiculously, officials who have retired in 7 erstwhile pay scales have been treated at par with regard to minimum basic pay and assured minimum pension (except Grade Pay). The condition of 33 years service is neither mentioned in the 6CPC report not in Government Resolution and it is not clear as to how this condition has been incorporated while clarifying the original orders. Obviously, the concept of modified parity has been completely ignored by the implementing authorities.

    In this regard it is worth to discuss the rulings of the H’ble Supreme Court, which enjoy the status of LAW OF THE LAND. 6th Pay Commission has referred to the famous judgment in the case of D.S. Nakara Vs Union of India (AIR 1983, SC 130) vide Para 5.1.3 of its report. This Judgment pronounced by a Constitution Bench of Supreme Court is available at http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.aspx for the benefit of all who want to read it. The case dates back to 70s when the Government had introduced Liberalized Pension Scheme. Earlier pension was calculated based on the average salary of last 36 months. Under Liberalized Pension Scheme, the provisions were changed to calculate the pension based on the average salary of last 10 months. The case was file by one retired civil officer (subject to Central Civil Pension Rules 1972) and one retired defence officer (subject to Army Pension Regulations) and the third petitioner was a Registered Society. Only the following extracts of this judgment will clarify the LAW OF THE LAND:
    “Proceeding further, this Court observed that where all
    relevant considerations are the same, persons holding
    identical posts may not be treated differently in the matter
    of their pay merely because they belong to different
    departments. If that can't be done when they are in service,
    can that be done during their retirement? Expanding this
    principle, one can confidently say that if pensioners form a
    class, their computation cannot be by different formula
    affording unequal treatment solely on the ground that some
    retired earlier and some retired later.”

    “All pensioners whenever they retired would be
    covered by the liberalised pension scheme, because the
    scheme is a scheme for payment of pension to a pensioner
    governed by 1972 Rules. The date of retirement is
    irrelevant. But the revised scheme would be operative from
    the date mentioned in the scheme and would bring under its
    umbrella all existing pensioners and those who retired
    subsequent to that date. In case of pensioners who retired
    prior to the specified date, their pension would be computed
    afresh”

    Another recent Judgment pronounced by H’ble Supreme Court on 9th September 2008 is available at http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.aspx for the information. This case was originally filed by some Retired Major Generals of the Army with regard to fixation of their pension after implementation of 5th Pay Commission. Government of India filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the judgment of Punjab High Court, (Civil Appeal No. 5566 of 2008, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12357 of 2006 Union of India Vs. SPS Vains (Retd.) and others). In this case H’ble Supreme Court has directed as under:
    “ We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal and modify the order of the High Court by directing that the pay of all pensioners in the rank of Major General and its equivalent rank in the two other wings of the Defence Services be notionally fixed at the rate given to similar officers of the same rank after the revision of pay scales with effect from 1.1.1996, and, thereafter, to compute their pensionary benefits on such basis”

    It is abundantly clear from the above extracts that the H’ble Supreme Court has already accepted the principle of OROP and this enjoys the status of the LAW OF THE LAND. However, the implementing officials of 6CPC have not even followed the concept of Modified Parity while issuing clarification vide F No 38/37/08 P&PW (A) Pt I dated 3rd October 08. It is not possible for the pensioners, especially in their advanced age to approach Courts of Law to seek justice. All concerned authorities are requested to look into this matter and initiate suitable action.All pre-2006 pensioners and their well-wishers are also requested to make public this issue so that our Political Leaders are aware of it and some action can be taken in the matter.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Kanaujiaml is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    499

    Default

    My dear Mr. sundaar. Kindly also see my rejoinder to Mr. S K Jain's observations just below the same thread. Thanks.

  3. #3
    Senior Member G.Ramdas is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    185

    Default

    Here is the latest News item on this Topic:
    Hindustan Times , New Delhi ,23 February
    Delhi High Court will decide if the Centre is justified in denying “one rank one pension” to retired defence and government employees, numbering about 40 lakh.

    After around 5,000 ex-servicemen, including decorated war veterans, returned their medals to the President at protest demonstrations at Jantar Mantar, the personnel have knocked on the doors of the court seeking justice.

    Justice S Ravindra Bhat will on Tuesday hear a petition filed by a former army major and a retired central government official. They have challenge the notification that has created disparity among the pensioners by dividing them into four pay bands.

    “Defence personnel of same rank and same length of service must draw same pension, irrespective of the date of retirement. As per the notification for the implementation of the recommendation of the Sixth Pay Commission, those who retired prior to January 2006 are at a very big disadvantage from those who retired after it as the government is using different formulae for computing their pension”, said lawyer Arun Maitri representing the retired personnel.

    The petition says that if pension is paid for past satisfactory services rendered and to avoid destitution in old age as well as a social welfare or socio-economic justice measure, differential treatment for those retiring prior to a certain date and those retiring subsequently will amount to injustice.

    With the pay commissions increasing the pay of armed forces and security personnel every 10 years, the gap between the pension received by those who retired before the implementation of the respective commissions widened.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Kanaujiaml is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    499

    Arrow One rank one pension row reaches Delhi High Court.

    My dear GRamdass and other pensioner friends. Good observation and reporting in Post 3 above. I have also seen the subject report and I feel that the ex soldiers have finally come to the conclusion that the legal action remains to be the only option for removal of injustice to pensioners. It is seen from the contention of the this report that it is similar to our case. Same arguments as we had been debating. Divisioning of pensioners datewise. Let us see what happens on Tuesday(tomorrow).

  5. #5
    Senior Member Kanaujiaml is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    499

    Arrow Regarding Post 3 and 4.

    Has anybody got any knowledge as to what happened on 24 02 09 during hearing of One rank one pension case in hon'ble Supreme Court ?

  6. #6
    Senior Member G.Ramdas is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    185

    Default

    We understand from Sh VN that
    Delhi H.C admisssion now denied on tech. grounds.
    Further details are not known
    GR

  7. #7
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    Dear K/all

    By now u must have seen my posting in the other thread "Injustice..." sl no 400 page 40 - footnote timed 1130 am clarifies the Delhi HC's denial of admission of the case on tech grounds- mixing up of military and civil perhaps is the issue!- it appears the two are to be dealt by separate benches. However Mr SCM has been requested to contact some IESM Office bearers at Gurgaon to ascertain the facts and other details.

    vnatarajan

  8. #8
    Senior Member Kanaujiaml is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vnatarajan View Post
    Dear K/all

    By now u must have seen my posting in the other thread "Injustice..." sl no 400 page 40 - footnote timed 1130 am clarifies the Delhi HC's denial of admission of the case on tech grounds- mixing up of military and civil perhaps is the issue!- it appears the two are to be dealt by separate benches. However Mr SCM has been requested to contact some IESM Office bearers at Gurgaon to ascertain the facts and other details.

    vnatarajan
    I talked to MR SCM on phone just a few minutes back. He is still ascertaining the facts. He told me that Mr. VN has found out that the petition has been turned down on technical grounds. This means petition had been filed with certain procedural shortcomings. If so, petition can be resubmitted after removing the shortcomings. It would be interesting to know the exact reason or shortcoming due to which petition has not been admitted. Actually, by One Rank One Pension, the ex soldiers are demanding same pension for a Rank with same length of service. This means if a Hawaldar retired in 1995 with 20 years of service, he would be having same pension as a Hawaldar retiring in 2008 with 20 years of service. It would also accrue arrears as well accordingly. Tall order, is not it ? It would be interesting to know legal grounds on which the petition was submitted. Familiar hon'ble SC judgments appear to be, in my opinian, unsupportive of it. Is it ?

  9. #9
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    Dear All

    While on the topic of the OROP, I wish to draw the attention of all to see the editorial in TOI - "A Matter of Honour" dtd 25th Feb 2009 - today- reg the Military Veterans plight/ grievances/surrender of honour/medals etc. and there is a one sentence reference to civil pensioners also mentioned in the last sentence of third para from the bottom.

    Link is:

    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/E...ow/4183952.cms

    It is a very well written editorial and makes everyone feel for the Indian Soldiers/ Military personnel- particularly the decorated veterans!

    See the Bangla Desh episode-? - what a contrast?

    I wish the Politicians/ Bureaucrats wake up soon !.

    It is not clear how the people in power and authority who have to ensure good ethical governance/administer justice/ who are so sympathetic to the "striking .........lawyers'" in Tamil Nadu- CAN BE SO INDIFFERENT TO THE HIGHLY DISCIPLINED/DIGNIFIED silently "striking" war veterans of the country whose demands are not so unjust as to even concede at the MINIMUM!!!

    I feel ashamed!

    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 25-02-2009 at 08:35 PM.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Kanaujiaml is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    499

    Arrow OROP demands.

    My dear VN. In referencne to your post 9 regarding OROP, I visited the site but could not find the " exact demand of ex soldiers " although lot of other things are there in it. I read Major General Surjit Singh's article on vijayvaani.com too. This article is exhaustive and traces the history upto present time and can be found on internet on above mentioned website. As regards, Major General having lesser pension than Brigadieer, mentioned in this article with references of court cases, you know it very well that Govt. has already conceded and has raised pension of Major General onwards after including 50% of military service pay of 6000 w e f 01 01 06.(see Annexure II of MOD letter No. 17(4)2008(1)D(pen/pol) dated 20 01 09). What remains now therefore, as per my understanding is, that they are demanding same pension for a particular rank (Sepoy, Hawaldar, Major General) with 20 years of service, who retired say, in 1996 and who retired in 2008 with same 20 years of service. I would request you to kindly tell me if it is correct or wrong and what is the "actual" demand of ex soldiers.

  11. #11
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    Dear K

    I think you are very much correct.

    But sometimes, in some other sites, I also read- that their philosophy of demanding OROP- could be related to other issues (irrespective of length of service!) also.

    For example Sepoys getting out after 5 / 7/ 10 yr Short Service Commissions come out at their young ages- not due to their faults- but due to the nature of commissioning- and there is no commitment on their alternate employment in Govt. entities.

    Many of them remain jobless for no fault of theirs. An issue which has to be appreciated & I do feel there is some merit in it. They have to fend themselves with whatever paltry pension they get- unless they have WON some gallantry awards etc (wh gets them some additional pension)!.

    Consequently OROP- all ex-Sepoys getting same pension may help them to at least have a better resource till they get another job (which is not so easy).

    This I think Govt. is not prepared as they will have to elevate many from the Minimum pension levels of Rs 3500/ 5000 or so to above Rs 8000 in case of Havildars ( Has to be chkd).- Reason quoted is "ENORMOUS ADDITIONAL BURDEN"!.

    I think one can sit and calculate the likely expenses- NOT MUCH_ compared to the doles 65000 crores to Farmers loan write-off/ new doles/ flood damage relief (wh is endless - continues- swallowed mostly by political parties- MY CLOSE FARMING FRIENDs GOT THEIR DOLES ON THE BASIS OF STRAIGHT CUT OF 25% -LAST FORTNIGHT ONLY!)- the Roj-gar schemes (where cut goes to 50%)- similar other schemes- all having dimensions of 20000 to 35000 crores- besides the FREEBIES like colour TV, Gas stoves etc that are being announced in instalments of 100 crores at a time!- FLOOD RELIEF in urban areas is another subsidy where compulsorily everyone in tparts of Chennai/ suburbs got their 2000 rs recently. Somebody has taken my name/ Ration Card details also- to get me the 2000 rs- and till now it has not come. IF IT COMES I THINK I SHD USE IT FOR THE COURT CASE fully!)

    vnatarajan

  12. #12
    Senior Member Kanaujiaml is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    499

    Arrow OROP-Ref. post 11.

    My dear VN. Major Gn.Surjit Singh says it would cost Govt. Rs 2200 Crs. per anum. (this cost he calculated on 16 02 09.It also includes cost of increasing pension of Major Gns. and above by 50% of MSP of 6000, which has already been accepted by Govt. and payment already started accordingly).
    If his calculation is ok, then I would say it is not much. Then, what is it that is not allowing Govt. to accept the demands ? That is why I wanted to know the actual demands of ex soldiers. You have not replied my question regarding the demands of ex. soldiers. Kindly try for a reply, if you can.

  13. #13
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    Dear K

    The ONLY DEMAND on wh the tug-of-war appears to be the OROP!

    Lt Cols to PB4 is given; Maj Gen and Lt Gen are permitted MSP for pension and so they are better off than before- NO MOIRE ANOMALOUS;Separate Pay Commission conceded:

    I dont recollect any other issue just now! I shall have to look into the details or ask my Army friend for clarification!

    I think the babus loosing the Pay Commission Control has become sensitive!

    Sensitive issues always crop up when certain Deptts are free to act and perform utilising their own powers! Babus cd never digest the same!

    (I think Deptt of Space and Deptt of Atomic Energy also must act in a MORE powerful way by giving liberal special pays/ advance increments/ ACPs in time etc in future to their Scientists/ Engineers/ Administrators etc- Their Big Bosses are Ex-Officio Secretaries and they are always quite independent and powerful. Because of that fact only, they could PERFORM and DELIVER!

    Railways also must have their own Ex-Officio Secretary- powerful enough to decide a few issues by themselves!)

    vnatarajan

  14. #14
    Senior Member Kanaujiaml is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    499

    Arrow Orop

    My dear VN. Ref. post 13. As I mentioned in my earlier post OROP means same pension to old retirees and recent ones with same length of service. Other grievances are general in nature and show dissatisfications of ex soldiers due to treatment meted out to them by IAS people and the Politicians, mostly at the top level. The entire thing comes to only one thing. Full parity. Regarding full parity, you need law to be quted and supportive hon'ble Supreme Court judgments. As far as I can see, none is availalble, after the Govt. met the demands of Major General and Lt. General and raised their pension above of a Brigadier, by including MSP in their pension, too. In contrast to this our demands are based on the facts that VI CPC vide para 5 1 47 had recommended "minimum of the pay in pay band corresponding to pre rewised pay scale" with all recommendations effective from 01 01 06 and it was accepted by Govt. and approved by Union Cabinet and notified in Gazette of India. This is in line with hon'ble Supreme Court judgments of 17 12 82 , 10 10 06 and 09 09 08. But, Ministry of P,PG&PW,DOP with conavance of Finance Ministry brought about a "modification" all by themselves and deliberately changed it to "minimum of pay band without having any correspondance with pre revised pay scale" vide OM dated 03 10 08 and dividing pensioners into pre 2006, post 06 and post 2008. When challenged in Court of law, Govt. is bound to get defeated. Have no doubts about it.

  15. #15
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    Dear all

    Latest on famous SPS Bains (Sept 2008 judgment- review by Govt- now decision in Feb/Mar 2009) parity case: (reproduced from a Military Blog
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sunday, March 1, 2009
    Dismissal of Petition seeking review of relief granted to Major Generals by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
    The Sword of Justice has no scabbard - Antione de Riveral

    Though I’m yet to see the order, it is learnt that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed the review petition filed by Union of India (Ministry of Defence, Govt of India) seeking a relook into the detailed decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in UOI Vs SPS Vains case that was decided on 09 Sept 2008.
    In the said decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had upheld the order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court wherein it was directed that there had to be a system of pension parity between officers retiring on different sets of dates. While the case did not directly deal with the principle of ‘One Rank One Pension’, it definitely sets into motion a regime for near parity where there is minimal difference in pension vis-*-vis different retirement dates.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Govt. has to implement now. Let us see what happens. Even last stage is over!

    vnatarajan.

  16. #16
    Senior Member G.Ramdas is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    185

    Default OROP for Civilian Pensioners

    Many of you may have heard the President Pratibha Patil's speech to the Joint Session of Parliament today, 04 Jun 09.
    The President in her address stated that the OROP is being reexamined and the decision will be given before end of June.
    Some of us feel that If OROP (one rank one pension) is implemented, time is not far off that our goal of parity, equality and justice will be achieved soon
    Some others, however, feel that we could not display the unity & the vote power which the Ex- service men have displayed. That's why they could muster v.strong political support.
    A report in the Times of India dt 5.6.09 brings out the following:
    "In her address to the joint sitting of Parliament on Friday, President Pratibha Patil said the committee headed by cabinet secretary K M Chandrasekhar had "already commenced its work and expects to complete it by the end of June 2009''.

    Just before the crucial fourth phase of polling on May 7, the defence ministry had declared that a high-level committee headed by the cabinet secretary had been constituted to "reduce the gap in the pensionary benefits to officers and jawans, bringing it as close to OROP as possible''.

    But slapped with a notice from the Election Commission for violating the model code of conduct, the government had swiftly backtracked and denied that the government has constituted any special committee for the purpose.

    The grouse of ex-servicemen is that all political parties have used OROP to garner votes but have never implemented it after coming to office. The government had obviously announced the setting up of the committee to counter the BJP's strong `Jai Jawan' tune in its manifesto.

    The defence community of 14 lakh serving and 23 lakh retired military personnel, after all, swells into a sizable votebank of around 1.5 crore people if family members are taken into account.

    The UPA government, however, is promising only a partial implementation of OROP at best, with the defence ministry itself acknowledging that full implementation is simply not feasible "administratively''.

    The defence ministry, however, admits that a case does exist for bringing the quantum of pension of pre-January 1996/October 1997 pensioners at par with post-January 1996/October 1997 and pre-January 2006 ones because the gap between the pensions of past and present retirees has considerably widened after the 6th Pay Commission.

    This will entail an additional financial burden of only around Rs 500-600 crore annually, with the government keen to reduce the present four categories of pensioners to only two broad ones of pre and post January 2006 retirees.

    "Full OROP implementation, in turn, could mean an annual outgo of around Rs 1,200-1,300 crore, apart from payment of arrears in the range of Rs 4,000 crore,'' said an official.


    The question is will the Govt. be generous enough to extend these benefits to the civilian pensioners who are also fighting for a cause viz.,modified parity as recommended by the 6CPC.
    If the defence ministry can admit that "a case does exist for bringing the quantum of pension of pre-January 1996/October 1997 pensioners at par with post-January 1996/October 1997 and pre-January 2006 ones because the gap between the pensions of past and present retirees has considerably widened after the 6th Pay Commission" then Dept of Pensions and Pensioners' welfare should also be gracious enough to admit this fact and work towards this goal.


    G.Ramdas

  17. #17
    Senior Member Kanaujiaml is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    499

    Default

    My dear GR. Govt. is very considerate of ex soldiers and defence pensioners. Orders are out allotting PB4 to lt. Colonel, maintaining total silence regarding JAG on civilian side. Similarly, MOD has issued instructions refixing higher pension to those ex soldiers who retired prior to 1996, again maintaining total silence about civiians. Their cases are being considered by forming sub-committees. On civilian side, there is total inaction on Govt. side. Even we do not know whether question of modified parity for us would be considered by AC. Our representations are being rejected enmasse. Therefore, hoping against hope has become our fate today.
    Last edited by Kanaujiaml; 07-06-2009 at 02:27 PM. Reason: for editing.

  18. #18
    Senior Member G.Ramdas is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    185

    Default

    Dear Sh Kanaujia,
    You seem to be right in saying that on civilian side, there is total inaction on Govt. side and one does not even know whether question of modified parity for would be considered by AC.
    Even the Defence officers feel that the civilian pensioners might not bother to fight for OROP- an interesting observation - recorded by a Sr. Defence officer in a blog- A very detailed analysis- a must read article, in the link given below:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/3448577/One-Rank-One-Pension

    g.ramdas

  19. #19
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    Dear All

    Here is a review of the half-baked "OROP" announced by the FM in his budget speech. This has appeared in a military blog site- "Report My Signal"- editorial.

    However we have to await the full details of the scheme.

    Rs 2100 cr per annum for 12 lakh pensioners works out to Rs 17500 per annum per military pensioner or Rs 1500 per month!

    Our projection for modified parity for all was around 6000 cr to 9000 cr maximum- for all-including civil and military pensioners in one stroke!

    What an ill-conceived frustrating useless decision by the Govt.?

    Even military officers-pensioners are left out- and they will have to fight like us for parity!

    Govt. is penny-wise - pound-foolish- unless it is OTHERWISE?
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BUDGET ANNOUNCEMENT ON ONE RANK ONE PENSION AND ITS IMPLICATIONS
    A skilfully crafted statement by the Finance Minister Mr Pranab Mukherjee on the long standing demand of the Defence Forces for One Rank One Pension (OROP), while presenting the 2009-10 budget, has created a wholly erroneous impression that OROP has finally been granted by the Congress Govt. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, available information indicates that the issue of OROP has not been even remotely addressed.
    By bringing pre 1996 pensioners at par with the post 1996 pensioners, the Finance Minister has only rectified a 13 years old anomaly, which should have been done long ago. Revised pensions announced after the VI CPC had created three distinct classes of pensioners; pre 1996 retirees, 01 Jan 1996 to 31 Dec 2005 retirees and post 01 Jan 2006 retirees. As a result, similar personnel in each class received widely differing pensions. Equity and natural justice demanded that these artificial distinctions should have been removed whenever pensions were revised; post V and VI CPCs. In a litigation relating to equity between pre and post 1996 defence pensioners, even the Supreme Court had ruled in Sep 2008 that such distinctions violated Article 14 of our Constitution. In fact, one may argue that Mr Mukherjee’s reported magnanimity is guided more by the apex court judgment than any serious concern for the Defence Pensioners.
    Importantly, the distinction between pre and post 2006 pensioners remains un-addressed. It needs reminding that the demand of the Defence Forces and Defence Pensioners for OROP was, in fact, ONLY for removal of this distinction. Such indifference of the Congress Govt for the Defence Forces and veterans is all the more galling, when viewed against the President’s statement, assuring early resolution of OROP, at the recent combined session of the Parliament. And, what is one to make of repeated statements of the MoD and the Raksha Mantri that the gap in pensions between the old and new pensioners will be substantially reduced and pensionery benefits of officers and jawans brought as close to OROP as possible?

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Not many appear to be satisfied!

    vnatarajan

  20. #20
    Senior Member G.Ramdas is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    185

    Default OROP for Defence not for Civilian Pensioners

    Dear All,
    The latest News on OROP confirms that the defence pensioners are also covered apart from the jawan pensioners. Read the news item from Tribune sent to us by Sh.NP Mohan


    M A I N N E W S
    ‘One rank, one pension’ for officers, too
    Tribune News Service/PTI
    New Delhi, July 13
    Defence Minister A K Antony today clarified in the Lok Sabha that "one rank, one pension" recommendation of the Cabinet Secretary-led panel had been accepted by the government for jawans as well as officers.
    The government has accepted recommendations of the panel on "one rank, one pension" and other related matters concerning the armed forces, the Lok Sabha was informed today.
    The decision is now nearer to the goal of “one rank, one pension” demand of nearly 1.5 million personnel, Antony said during question hour.
    The total financial implications on account of benefits to the personnel would be Rs 2,144 crore, the minister said.
    The committee has recommended inclusion of Classification Allowance for the Personnel Below Officer Rank (PBOR) from January 1, 2006, and removal of linkage of full pensions with 33 years from the same date, he said.
    The committee also recommended revision of pension of Lt Generals after carrying out a separate pay scale for them, bringing parity between pension pre and post October 10, 1997, for PBOR pensioners and further improving PBOR pensions based on award of Group of Ministers in 2006.
    With regard to the separate pay commission, the minister said it had been agreed, and as and when necessary it would be set up in the future.
    Antony said the government had also accepted the committee's recommendations regarding raising the pension amount for those disabled or injured in war.
    "After considering all aspects of the issue, the committee made several recommendations to substantially improve pensionary benefits of Personnel Below Officer Rank and Commissioned Officers, which have been accepted by the government," the minister added.


    What next for civilian pensioners?

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. One Rank One Pension - pre 2006 pensioners
    By SK Jain in forum Pensioners
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 02-01-2009, 08:59 AM
  2. Four pb pensioners of pre-2006 and pre-sep. 2008
    By sundarar in forum Pensioners
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 13-12-2008, 04:12 AM
  3. PB-4 Pre-2006 Pensioners
    By sundarar in forum Pensioners
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-12-2008, 09:56 PM
  4. Pensioners of pre-2006 & pre-2.9.2008
    By sundarar in forum Pensioners
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-12-2008, 07:54 PM
  5. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-10-2008, 06:26 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts