FLASH !!! GROUP-I AIRMEN ARE BEING ISSUED WITH DIPLOMA CERTIFICATE EQUATED WITH DEGREE IN ENGINEERING. APPLY TO AOC AFRO SUBRATO PARK NEW DELHI WITH ALL DETAILS AND COPY OF DISCHARGE BOOK *** JOIN THIS BLOG AS FOLLOWER BY CLICKING "FOLLOW" LINK *** CLICK HERE
FLASH !!! ONE RANK ONE PENSION IS ANNOUNCED BY FM IN TODAY'S BUDGET'W.E.F. 1.4.2014 DETAILS ARE AWAITED. ECHS FACILITIES IN DISTRICTS NOT COVERED BY ECHS SEE POST ***

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

IESM LETTER TO DEFENCE MINISTER ON IMPLEMENTATION OF ONE RANK ONE PENSION (OROP)


Saturday, July 19, 2014
19 Jul 2014
ShArunJaitley
Hon’bleRakshaMantri
Ministry of Defence
South Block, New Delhi-110011
Sub: IMPLEMENTATION OF ONE RANK ONE PENSION (OROP)
Dear ShArunJaitley,
We are grateful for granting us the meeting with you on 16 July 2014  with regard to issue of Implementation letter for OROP.
Sir,
 your contention that the gap between the calculations made by the Service HQs and the officials of MoD namely CGDA, PCDA, Secy DESW is very large, due to which there was delay in issuing the Govt Letter; is a serious cause of concern for the Defence Fraternity. 
Since, there is only ONE Definition of OROP as approved by the Parliament and therefore, there has to be only ONE calculation, irrespective of small or large gap.
                     It is simple Mathematics
  As pleaded by us, there cannot be two calculations.
  These gaps have been designed to find a way to deny full benefit of OROP to Ex-Servicemen. 
A point to be noted here is that had OROP been granted 25 years back there would not have been any gap now. 
Sir, we are not after money and not asking for back dated payment, it is the principle of seniority in Armed Forces which we cherish. 
As per this principle, a senior rank person should not draw pension/ pay less than rank lower than him. It is a simple principle we need to maintain hence we cannot afford any violation with OROP principle.
Sir, in case X and Y Groups are to be granted OROP as per their respective Groups, the funds required will be 4500 – 5000 Crores, as per calculations correctly carried out by the Service HQs.  And in case all Defence Employees are to be granted ‘X’ Group rates of pensions, then the amount required would be 6500-7000 Crores as per the calculation made by PCDA.
The funds required for the two options are not too large for the Nation to pay justified pensions to the Retired Soldiers, who have given their life and comforts of life for national security.
The CGDA/PCDA/DESW should not be allowed to dilute the definition of OROP or coin their own definition or understanding of OROP. Their calculations, based on datum line 01.01.2006 pensions rates, are totally against the  approved definition which requires the OROP to be calculated based on the rates of pensions as on 01.04.2014, the date from which OROP has been sanctioned and future enhancements are to be automatically passed on to the past pensioners. This was duly discussed in the meting chaired by you on 12thJune 2014. 
The M1 and M2 Models by CGDA, PCDA, and DESW were out-rightly rejected.
Sir, ex-servicemen are fighting for a principle, any dilution of definition of OROP will not be acceptable to the Ex-Servicemen. It has to be full OROP as per the definition already approved by the Parliament.
In view of the foregoing, please expedite issue of Govt Letter for the implementation of OROP as per the DGL prepared by the Service HQs.

With regards,
Maj Gen (Retd) Satbir Singh, SM
Chairman IESM
Mob: +919312404269,                               0124-4110570
Email ID: 
satbirsm@gmail.com
Copy to

ShriRaoInderjit Singh                                RakshaRajyaMantri C-1/14 Lodi Garden        New Delhi - 110 003   
For immediate action to issue the Implementation letters of OROP please.
General Bikram Singh,                                               PVSM, UYSM, AVSM, SM, VSM,  ADC             Chief of the Army Staff &Chairman Chiefs of Staff Committee                                        Integrated HQs of Armed Forces (Army)     South Block, New Delhi-110011
May we request you to jointly pursue the matter with the Govt for issue of Implementation letter as suggested above at the earliest please.
Admiral RK Dhowan,
PVSM, AVSM, YSM, ADC,                                Chief of the Naval Staff                            Integrated HQs of Armed Forces (Navy)    South Block, New Delhi-110011
-do-
Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha
PVSM, AVSM, VM, ADC                                     Chief of the Air Staff                                       Indian Air Force                                                  VayuBhawan, New Delhi 110011
(SOURCE- BC VASUNDHARS BLOG)
-do-

Monday, July 21, 2014

UPDATE ON OROP


orop progress Meeting of IESM Delegation with Finance Minister Sh.ArunJaitley on 16 July 14 Dear Veterans IESM delegation met with FM ShArunJaitley on 16 July 14. Following members were part of the delegation. 1 Maj Gen Satbir Singh Chairman IESM 2 Lt Gen SK Bahiri 3 GpCapt VK Gandhi Gen Sec IESM 4 Wg Cdr CK Sharma Treasurer IESM 5 Col HandaDiwave 6 Hony Lt K PandeyMem GB IESM Gen Sabir Singh impressed upon FM that ex-servicemen thank the Govt for granting OROP, however despite a lapse of five months since approval of OROP on 17 Feb 14, Government order for implementation is still not issued. We request that the implementation order may please be issued soon. Moreover Rs 1,500 crore allotted for OROP is not adequate for full OROP and more funds may please be released for OROP. FM replied that the DGL is under active consideration of Govt and it will be issued once consultations are completed. He hinted that funds required for OROP is much more than expected. The issue was discussed for good 15 min but FM did not give any commitment about time frame for issue of implementation order. He opined that it seems he would need to order a meeting between Armed Forces HQs and Govtdeptts (DESW, CGDA) to iron out the differences. It was suggested that IESM should also be consulted and permitted to give its views but FM remained noncommittal on this. End result is that FM did not give any commitment and time frame of approval of DGL put up by Armed Forces HQs. He also did not give assurance of involving IESM and ex-servicemen in the discussion of DGL. IESM is of the opinion that veterans will need to tighten their belts for another long battle with the Govtfor OROP, your Izzat and status. IESM will continue to discuss the issue with all authorities for release of implementation letter for full OROP. IESM will not accept any dilution in definition of OROP as approved by Parliament. It seems DESW and CGDA have succeeded in delaying implementation of OROP for veterans but have had no objections for approving bureaucrats treatment abroad along with an escort on Govt expenses. What a pity this is how India takes care of soldiers and veterans. .
Meeting of IESM Delegation with Finance Minister ShArunJaitley on 16 July 14
Dear Veterans

IESM delegation met with FM ShArunJaitley  on 16 July 14. Following members were part of the delegation.

1              Maj Gen Satbir Singh                 Chairman IESM

2              Lt Gen SK Bahiri

3              GpCapt VK Gandhi                     Gen Sec IESM

4              Wg Cdr CK Sharma                     Treasurer IESM

5              Col Handa                                     Diwave

6              Hony Lt K Pandey                       Mem GB IESM


Gen Sabir Singh impressed upon FM that ex-servicemen thank the Govt for granting OROP, however despite a lapse of five months since approval of OROP on 17 Feb 14, Government order for implementation is still not issued. We request that the implementation order may please be issued soon. Moreover Rs 1,500 crore allotted for OROP is not adequate for full OROP and more funds may please be released for OROP.

FM replied that the DGL is under active consideration of Govt and it will be issued once consultations are completed. He hinted that funds required for OROP is much more than expected. 

The issue was discussed for good 15 min but FM did not give any commitment about time frame for issue of implementation order. He opined that it seems he would need to order a meeting between Armed Forces HQs and Govtdeptts (DESW, CGDA) to iron out the differences. It was suggested that IESM should also be consulted and permitted to give its views but FM remained noncommittal on this.

End result is that FM did not give any commitment and time frame of approval of DGL put up by Armed Forces HQs. He also did not give assurance of involving IESM and ex-servicemen in the discussion of DGL.

IESM is of the opinion that veterans will need to tighten their  belts for another long battle with the Govt for OROP, your Izzat and status.

IESM will continue to discuss the issue with all authorities for release of implementation letter for full OROP. IESM will not accept any dilution in definition of OROP as approved by Parliament.

It seems DESW and CGDA  have succeeded in delaying implementation of OROP for veterans but have had no objections for approving bureaucrats treatment abroad along with an escort on Govt expenses.  What a pity this is how India takes care of soldiers and veterans. .
Posted by ESMA at 1:47 AM 


Saturday, July 12, 2014

'Rs 1000 crore outlay for OROP insufficient'



CHANDIGARH: The announcement of Rs 1,000 crore in the Union budget for the implementation of much-awaited one-rank one-pension (OROP) policy has come as a rude shock for the defence fraternity in Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Chandigarh, which has termed the amount as "insufficient".

According to veterans, the Union ministry of defence (MoD) had proposed Rs 3,000 crore per year before a 10-member parliamentary panel led by BJP leader and Nainital-Rudrapur MP Bhagat Singh Koshiyari. Even Union finance ministry had recommended Rs 1,300 crore under OROP for 2011-12 financial year and Rs 1,730 crore for 2013-14.

"The allocation of just Rs 1,000 crore for the year by the finance minister is mere eyewash, and not related to OROP. I think the government has been misled by bureaucrats," said Brigadier (retd) K S Kahlon, president of All India Defence Brotherhood (Punjab Chapter). High court advocate Major Navdeep Singh, who has been taking up welfare issues of defence personnel, said that Rs 1,000 crore for one year would not meet the demand of the "accepted' definition of OROP". "I think the very concept of OROP has been misinterpreted by the central government," he said.

Defending the government, war veteran Lt General (retd) P N Hoon, who has been associated with BJP, said Rs 1,000 crore might be insufficient but at least something had been done. "What did the previous governments do so far? Coffers are empty, but with the passage of time the government would increase the amount," he said. There are around 30 lakh ex-servicemen in the country out of which 8 lakh are from Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Chandigarh. Punjab has around 3 lakh former defence personnel.

Source: Times of India

Friday, July 4, 2014

Cheated, eh?


It is indeed ironic.

The pension wing of the Ministry of Defence, now under the so called Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare (DESW) has cheated military veterans and their families since long. It is however sad that these downright deceitful actions did not elicit any protest from the Services HQ, who, especially during times of yore, either did not have the capability of keeping a sharp eye on issues concerning defence veterans, or were not clued up or were simply too timid to react.

Whatever be the reason, I am pointing out four out of many such instances of how Cabinet decisions have been openly given the kick by a few junior level functionaries of the Ministry of Defence leading to denial of crores of rupees to poor unsuspecting veterans and their families:

1. Pensioners other than commissioned officers who retired prior to 10-10-1997 : When the 5th CPC was implemented with effect from 01-01-1996, a gazette notification was duly issued which stated that though the scales were being mentioned for ranks other than officers, the Ministry was carrying out trade rationalisation and removing anomalies from the said scales and the scales would finally be implemented once the said rationalisation was complete and that the said anomaly-free scales would replace the anomalous scales with effect from 01-01-1996. However, when the anomalies were removed and the new scales were finally implemented, these were implemented w.e.f 10-10-1997 through Special Army Instruction (SAI) 2/S/98 and were not implemented w.e.f 01-01-1996 as already approved by the Cabinet. The retrospective implementation w.e.f 01-01-1996 notified vide a Gazette notification was conveniently forgotten. Later when pensions were improved from time to time, the said improvement was based on the anomalous scales of 1996 rather than the anomaly-free rationalised scales introduced in 1997 which were in fact to take effect from 1996 thereby replacing the old anomalous scales. Many decisions in favour of pensioners were rendered by High Courts on the said issue and affirmed by the Supreme Court but still the Ministry did not take any action on the subject. The situation was finally rectified by the Defence Ministry w.e.f 01-07-2009 thereby denying our pensioners the correct pension from 01-01-1996 till 30-06-2009. The Ministry not only managed to flout and contravene a gazette notification issued after approval of the Cabinet, but also managed to disregard directions of our Constitutional Courts.

2.  Removal of requirement of 10 months’ service in a particular rank to earn the pension of that rank: The 6th CPC abrogated the requirement of the 10 months’ formula and provided that pension shall be calculated on the basis of 50% of the emoluments last drawn unlike the position earlier where service of 10 months in a particular rank was required to earn the pension of that rank. The same was made applicable to both pre and post-2006 retirees by the Government. Prior to the 6th CPC, the pensions of Personnel Below Officer Rank (PBOR) were calculated on the basis of themaximum of the pay-scales which was different than the system followed for all civilian employees and commissioned officers of the defence services for whom the pension was calculated on the basis of the minimum of pay scale. Accordingly, again to provide an edge to PBOR as was the case till 6th CPC, the Government constituted a committee under the Cabinet Secretary who opined that the pension of pre-2006 retirees should be calculated based on the notional maximum within the new 6th CPC scales corresponding to the maximum of pre-6th CPC (5th CPC) scales as per the 6th CPC switch-over fitment tables thereby extending the edge granted to PBOR which was applicable to them earlier. This new stipulation was made applicable with financial effect from 01-07-2009. The said report was accepted by the Cabinet. However, when the DESW of the Ministry of Defence issued the implementation letter, they on their own again added a line re-introducing the 10 months stipulation back into the pensionary provisions for pre-2006 retirees which in reality now stood abrogated for pre-2006 as well as post-2006 retirees after the 6th CPC. Meaning thereby, that if a Naib Subedar had served only for 6 months in that rank prior to retirement, he would be granted the pension of a Havildar, and not a Naib Subedar. The interesting part however remains that even the notings sent to the Cabinet for approval of the Committee’s recommendations contained no such stipulation and the same was mischievously added by lower and mid-level officials of the Ministry of Defence without any reference to the Committee of Secretaries or to the Cabinet, which itself is a serious mischief in an elected democracy.

3. Grant of pension limited to maximum terms of engagement rather than 33 years as applicable to all government pensioners :It is commonly known that earlier, pensionary tables for defence personnel used to be prepared only till the maximum possible service in each rank since individuals were compulsorily retired on attaining the maximum terms of engagement. However, the 4thCentral Pay Commission recommended that full pension should be fixed on the basis of 33 years of service including weightage and proportionately reduced for lesser length of service. The system of 33 years is followed as on date for all pre-2006 pensioners. However still, the Defence Accounts Department continued paying pension in accordance with the maximum terms of engagement for each rank and not based on 33 years of service as applicable after the 4th CPC. For example, if a Naik had served for 28 years, or if a DSC Naik had say 30 years of combined service of two spells, they were only being paid a pension for 22 years of service on the specious pretext that the maximum terms of engagement possible for a Naik were 22 years. This was later questioned and quashed by Courts being against the notifications issued after various CPCs which contained no such prohibition. Now last year, the cabinet improved the pensionary benefits of Sepoys, Naiks and Havildars by increasing their weightages. The Govt was then asked to issue a letter. The letter was issued, but again mischievously, in Para 8 of the Letter dated 17 Jan 2013, a line was added by the DESW that the pension shall be revised subject to the maximum terms of engagement for each rank. Giving a benefit to some by one hand and taking it away with the other. This prohibition was never a part of the Union Cabinet’s decision or the recommendations of the Committee of Secretaries on the basis of which this Govt of India letter had been issued but was made a part of the draft letter prepared by the Defence Accounts Department. From where did this line creep in mysteriously and illegally? As on date, all govt employees are being paid pensions in accordance with the length of service rendered by them, however Other Ranks of the defence services are being paid only in accordance with the terms of engagement applicable to their ranks from time to time rather than their actual service. This is not only unfair, but also patently illegal.

4.  Enhancement and fresh Categories of Casualty Pensionary Awards including Disability, War Injury and Liberalized Pensionary Awards, introduced after the 5th CPC : The 5th CPC had introduced certain new categories and enhanced the existing casualty pensionary awards w.e.f 01-01-1996. These were extended only to post-96 retirees vide a Govt of India letter for civil pensioners issued on 03-02-2000. The same stipulations were later extended to post-96 defence pensioners by the MoD vide a letter dated 31-01-2001. Later, the benefits were extended by the Govt of India to pre-96 pensioners vide another letter issued on 11-09-2001 and a copy of that letter was sent to MoD for implementation. The MoD however sat on the letter and never issued similar instructions for defence pensioners. Till date, w.e.f 01-01-1996, pre-1996 retiree defence pensioners have been denied the benefits of the Govt of India letter dated 11-09-2001 despite the fact that the Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare (DoPPW) has reminded the MoD time and again to do the needful. One stipulation of the letter of broad-banding of disability percentages was implemented by the MoD for pre-1996 retirees but only with effect from 01-07-2009 thereby denying such disabled personnel the arrears from 01-01-1996 till 30-06-2009, which of course had been released and paid to similarly placed civilians.

Yes, all of you were cheated. And the most striking feature of this sadism is that the particular officer in DESW who was responsible for many of the above actions and is also a signatory of a majority of these letters, is now dealing with the process of implementation of One Rank One Pension (OROP). He is still functioning in the DESW on re-employment, after retiring from regular service.

Unless veterans are on the same page and cease and desist from their internal battles, and the Services HQ acquire expertise and knowledge, overcome timidity and involve stake-holders, no progress can be expected.

The state seems much better in the Pay Commission Cells of the Defence Services at this point, but only time would tell if the hammering can be reversed or if further hammering can be arrested.

Best of luck!

ANNUAL GENERAL BODY MEETING & ELECTIONS ON 6.7.2014 OF EX-SERVICEMEN WELFARE ASSOCIATION HYDERABAD EAST

THERE WILL BE A ANNUAL GENERAL BODY MEETING ON 6.7.2014 AT 10.00 A.M. AT TEJASWI MOTORS BESIDE RYTHU BAZAR, KOTHAPET.  ALSO  ELECTIONS WILL BE CONDUCTED TO THE NEW BODY. ALL THE MEMBERS ARE REQUESTED TO ATTEND THE SAME. LUNCH FOLLOWS. 

Saturday, June 14, 2014

Sub: IMPLEMENTATION OF ONE RANK ONE PENSION (OROP)


Dear Veterans
Letter to RM, PM, BJP President, RRM and three Chiefs regarding Implementation of OROP dated 13 Jun 2014 is enclosed herewith for your information and widest circulation please.
With regards,
Maj Gen (Retd) Satbir Singh, SM
Chairman IESM
Mob: +919312404269, 0124-4110570
Email ID: satbirsm@gmail.com
.................................
13 Jun 2014
Sh Arun Jaitley, Hon’ble Raksha Mantri
Ministry of Defence South Block, New Delhi-110011
Sub: IMPLEMENTATION OF ONE RANK ONE PENSION (OROP)
Dear Sh Arun Jaitley,
At the outset, I would like to thank you for yesterday’s fruitful meeting, and would also request you for personal perusal of this letter, at your level.
BJP in its Manifesto had assured the Defence fraternity that OROP will be implemented. PM, Mr. Narendra Modi during his election Rallies had announced that BJP will implement the OROP in letter and spirit. In a Rally near Ludhiana (Jagraon), he had assured the Defence Veterans that actual OROP will be implemented. You are aware that defence personnel across the Country had supported the BJP since it was the only Political Party which had assured that their demands and requirements will be accepted in case it came to power and these were included in its Manifesto. It was heartening to hear President in his address to both houses of Parliament also mentioning that OROP will be implemented soon as gratitude to the soldiers for their sacrifices to the Nation.
It is with this assurance in mind, I had the privilege to attend the meeting yesterday ie. on 12th June 2014 Chaired by you, where in, the services Headquarters had briefed on the implementation OROP. The Draft Govt Letter (DGL) prepared by the Service HQs is in line with the accepted definition of OROP and is as per executive orders given by the then Defence Minister Mr. AK Antony during his meeting on 26th Feb 2014. The minutes of the meeting alongwith the executive orders are enclosed for your perusal.
I wish to bring to your notice a fews issues which came up for discussion during the meeting yesterday:-

· The definition of OROP accepted by the Govt and given out by the then RM on 26 Feb 2014 is the same as accepted by the Petition Committee of Rajya Sabha on OROP Chaired by the Shri Bhagat Singh Koshyari which presented its report on 19 Dec 2011 to the Rajya Sabha.
· Based on the above definition, Koshyari Committee after due deliberations with the Secretary Finance and secretary expenditure had worked out the requirement of funds of Rs 3000 Crores in 2011. With 10 percent of inflation every year, it works out to Rs 4000 Crores in 2014. This amount is nothing for the Nation to meet the long pending demand of defence fraternity. OROP has been assured to them by none other than Sh Raj Nath Singh ji President BJP and Sh Narendra Modi Prime Minister India. OROP and welfare of ex-serviceman is a main essence of BJP manifesto. Government has promised that all promises made in manifesto will be honoured asap.
· The then Govt had earmarked Rs 500 Crores as initial indicated amount and had mentioned in the order of 26 Feb 2014 that additional fund as required will be made available.
· It was accepted even by the last Govt that disability and family pensioners will be included in the grant of OROP.
· The Model I and Model 2 by the PCDA/CGDA/DESW must be outrightly rejected since these had never ever come under any discussion on OROP. These, to our mind had been brought in as red herring by elements of lower bureaucracy of the DESW and the Defence Accounts Department in conjunction with the UPA Govt to delay the grant of OROP as per the accepted definition. It may be emphasized here by us again that the definition as announced on the floor of the house and also accepted in writing by way of a Govt of India letter, cannot be held mortgage to the thought processes or personal opinions of bodies of accountants.
· The model presented by the Defence Services HQ is in line with the accepted definition of OROP and fully meets its requirement. Acceptance of any other model will not be OROP as per the accepted definition.
· All the objections raised by the PCDA/CGDA/DESW had been effectively contested by the Service HQs and need to be ignored.
· Rates of pensions are enhanced every year since the basic pays of serving soldiers are enhanced at the rate of three percent every year. In order, to implement the OROP, there is need to adopt a simple workable dynamic model to enhance the pensions every year. If this is not implemented, juniors will start drawing more pension that their seniors. In that event, protection clause will need to be applied which will be difficult to implement and will cause delays.
· Rank pay case as per the SC judgement when implemented would need to be incorporated in OROP.
· Requirement of Rs 9100 Crores required for OROP as stated by CGDA does not seem to be in sync, as no details had been given by the CGDA to the service HQs. We would like to bring to your knowledge that it is very easy for accountants to play with numbers on noting sheets and file notings in order to twist the entire amount and make it seem prohibitory thereby trying to negatively influence the political executive. It is also not understood as to how is the figure provided by even the Expenditure Secretary before a Parliamentary Committee is being now twisted in an attempt to breakaway from the accepted definition of OROP.
· The Govt is committed to implement the OROP as per the accepted definition whatever be the requirement of funds.
In view of the above, the following recommendations are made:-.
1. The Draft Govt Letter (DGL) prepared by the Services HQ for the implementation of OROP as per the accepted definition as already announced in the Parliament and as already issued in writing by the Govt, be sanctioned and implementation letter issued at the earliest.
2. The amount required to implement the OROP as per the above DGL be made available.

3. Disability and family pensions be duly incorporated in the OROP.
4. Rank Pay case Judgement of SC when implemented be incorporated in the OROP.
5. Any further decision or meeting on the issue may not be taken merely on the inputs of Defence Accounts Department or the DESW and may only be taken after due consultation with all stake-holders so that unilateral points of view can be effectively countered whenever required.
With regards,
Maj Gen (Retd) Satbir Singh, SM
Chairman IESM
Mob: +919312404269, 0124-4110570
Email ID: satbirsm@gmail.com
Copy to
Sh Narendra Modi Prime Minister of India Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) New Delhi – 110 001
For information please
Sh Rajnath Singh President, BJP Home Minister Govt of India North Block,New Delhi
For information and action please.
Shri Rao Inderjit Singh
Raksha Rajya Mantri
C-1/14 Lodi Garden
New Delhi - 110 003
For information and action please.
General Bikram Singh,
PVSM, UYSM, AVSM, SM, VSM, ADC
Chief of the Army Staff &
Chairman Chiefs of Staff Committee
Integrated HQs of Armed Forces (Army)
South Block, New Delhi-110011
May we request you to jointly pursue the matter with the Govt for issue of Implementation letter as suggested above at the earliest please.

Friday, May 23, 2014

UPDATE ON OROP

OROP Status Report
by Lt Gen Raj Kadyan

General

1.      Politicians speaking in the Parliament add a lot of dressing to the substance of what they say. The Finance Minister did the same on 14.02.2014 while speaking on OROP. He first floridly announced that the gap between pre-2006 and post-2006 retirees for all ranks needs to be closed. Later, coming to the gist he had stated that the government has now decided to walk the last mile and implement the scheme of One Rank One Pension for all Armed Forces personnel and their dependents.

2.    In the follow-up meeting held on 26.02.2014 the Defence Minister, who was in chair, had reiterated the following definition of OROP:

       "OROP implies that uniform pension be paid to the Armed Forces personnel retiring in the same rank with the same length of service irrespective of their date of retirement and any future enhancement in the rates of pension to be automatically passed on to the past pensioners. This implies bridging the gap between the rate of pension of the current pensioners and the past pensioners, and also future enhancements in the rate of pension to be automatically passed on to the past pensioners."

3.   This definition accords with what the IESM has been projecting (except we had not used the term 'uniform pension'). This was also the definition given by the Rajya Sabha Committee  on Petitions that submitted its report on 19.12.2011.

4.    The Services prepared a draft government letter in April giving out detailed modalities of OROP. The draft still remains under discussion.

Meetings of Stake Holders

5.      In a subsequent meeting held on 22.04.2014, the Defence Minister constituted a committee to work out the modalities and submit its report within three weeks. (It is learnt that the Minister wanted the report much faster but the PCDA expressed inability to do it in lesser time frame).

6.    The Committee has had five sittings starting with the first meeting on 02.05.2014. Some of these were chaired by the RRM.  The PCDA has been consistently displaying an obstructionist approach and has been the main stumbling block. He has been giving his own interpretation to various aspects of OROP. Some of these, including the counter by the Services are given in following paras.

7.    Definition of OROP.   According to PCDA, definition of OROP should be drawn from the Finance Minister's budget 2014-15 speech vide which the gap between pre-2006 retirees and post-2006 retirees for all ranks needs to be closed. Here he is quoting the first part of the FMs speech while conveniently ignoring the second part as given in Para 1 above. The Service representatives attending the meetings have pointed this out in the meeting and have also drawn attention to the definition given by the Rajya Sabha Committee on Petitions.

8.      Interpretation of the Term 'Uniform Pension'.  The PCDA has opined that 'Uniform' pension means pension under a uniform pay/pension structure i.e. under the same pay scales with same qualifying service & pension calculation formula. According to him it need not necessarily lead to same pension for all the retirees (past & present) in the same rank and same qualifying service because of the annual increments being given to the serving personnel. The Services have of course countered saying uniform pension means one/same/equal/identical pension.

9.      Length of Service.  The PCDA has further held that the 'length of service' in the OROP definition is to be treated as the number of years of service put in by the pensioner in the rank last held. Alternatively, according to the PCDA, if total qualifying service is to be treated for the purpose of OROP then qualitative aspects relating to length of service in terms of number of years rendered in each rank the service person has served before the retirement in the last rank held, needs to be taken cognizance of. This they concede will be difficult to implement in practice. The counter by the Services is that length of service and qualifying service are synonymous as given in Rule 19 of Pension Regulations 2008 as also in the MoD letter dated 17.01.2013.

10.   Bridging the Gap.    The PCDA has further held that while bridging the gap between the pre-2006 and post-2006 pensioners the benefits of improved service conditions (viz. method of faster promotion applicable to the current personnel) should not be extended to past pensioners. This in fact runs against the concept of automatically passing on future enhancement to past pensioners, which is intrinsic to the definition of OROP. The Services have pointed this out, also underscoring the fact that the benefit of MSP and Grade Pay for calculation of pension has already been extended to past pensioners. The Services have further suggested that there should be a periodic review of OROP say on yearly basis, wherein any anomaly can be addressed.

Conclusion

11.    For reasons best known to them the outgoing government announced OROP too late and could not get it implemented during their tenure. With their term nearing the end, the bureaucratic hierarchy reportedly stopped being responsive to political orders. The dunderheaded obduracy of some financial bureaucrats can delay it for some time but cannot stop OROP. It is reiterated that OROP has come about after a long effort of over three decades. While some delay in its implementation is understandable, any hint of dilution will be resisted and will result in renewal of the struggle by The IESM.

Thursday, May 8, 2014

Extending judicial decisions in matters of a general nature to all similarly placed employees.


 Para 126.5 of 5th Central Pay Commission  reads as under: 
Extending judicial decisions in matters of a general nature to all similarly placed employees. - We have observed that frequently, in cases of service litigation involving many similarly placed employees, the benefit of judgement is only extended to those employees who had agitated the matter before the Tribunal/Court. This generates a lot of needless litigation. It also runs contrary to the judgment given by the Full Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in the case of C.S. Elias Ahmed and others v. UOI & others (O.A. Nos. 451 and 541 of 1991), wherein it was held that the entire class of employees who are similarly situated are required to be given the benefit of the decision whether or not they were parties to the original writ. Incidentally, this principle has been upheld by the Supreme Court in this case as well as in numerous other judgments like G.C. Ghosh v. UOI, [ (1992) 19 ATC 94 (SC) ], dated 20-7-1998; K.I. Shepherd etc. Accordingly, we recommend that decisions taken in one specific case either by the judiciary or the Govt. should be applied to all other identical cases without forcing the other employees to approach the court of law for an identical remedy or relief.  Recently, CAT Principal Bench has issued direction on 12.03.2014 in OA No. 864/2014 that once an order has been passed by this tribunal and it has also been upheld at the level of the Supreme Court, there is no question of waiting for an approval from any Govt. department for implementation of the same. 

Saturday, April 5, 2014

9000 SFT OFFICE SPACE AVAILABLE AT SOMAJI GUDA HYDERABAD

There is big space of about 9000 sq.ft for office use is available in prime area of somajiguda at ARAM GHAR COMPLEX, PLOT NO.10, SURYANAGAR, SOMAJIGUDA, HYD. In Ground and 1st floor, with all emenities big Parking Area also there. This is new building & This area Usefull for all CORPORATE OFFICES. BANKS. & OTHER SOFTWEAR COMPANIES
Interested persons may  contact ph no. 9440039383 

Tuesday, April 1, 2014

EX-SERVICEMAN IS REQUIRED FOR GATED COMMUNITY AS RESIDENT MANAGER NEAR KOMPALLY, HYDERABAD

 A Resident Manager is required  to perform the following jobs at a Gated Community. 

The requirements are:

1.The job needs good skills in terms of man management and idea of getting works done in organised way      with in time frames given. 

2.Procurement of material , labour and management of differnet resident complaints and solving them with in a time frame are some basic requirements of the job.  

3.Should be able to speak english/hindi and telugu languages.

4.Salary will commensurate with experience. 



Interested Ex-Servicemen near by Kompally may call on Mr.Sandeep Reddy mobile: 9885399123

ON PUBLIC REQUEST THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT IS POSTED AGAIN HERE

SALARY HIKE TO MPS, ONE RANK, ONE PENSION

SALARY HIKE TO MPS, ONE RANK, ONE PENSION
Letter to Hon'ble Prime Minister by Hon'ble M.P.

Page-2

Ex-Servicemen return Medals