Invites regional ESM organizations to get affiliated with AFVAI to strengthen the movement Further.Please contact at afvaindia@gmail.com #



Sunday, 15 November 2015

1:2200000- Ratio" Why OROP; why not something better?

One Rank One Pension - OROP is back in the news. The national news channels carry a '# OROP WAR UPDATE', regularly these days. Most of the associations representing POTOs have accepted the OROP notification issued on 07.11.2015. Their idea is to first avail the benefits given under the notification and thereafter raise the remaining issues and anomalies with the one member judicial commission being appointed by the GOI for this purpose.

However, the associations like IESM mostly represented by the Officer veterans are unwilling to accept the 07.11 2015 notification and is continuing with their JM agitation till this day. They have also now resorted to 'medal wapsi' and 'medal jalavo' andolans. Of course  It is their prerogative and democratic right to agitate. We have no issues with it. But we are only concerned with the fall out of such prolonged agitations, as they do certainly affect us.

One of the fall outs of such prolonged agitation could be the delay in implementation of what has already been notified, which it s already happening and which in turn, could result in the ultimate review of the entire matter. Incidentally, for any reasons if the GOI decides to review the OROP, we should then insist on  review from the scratch. In this connection the following points may be worthy of consideration:-

1. The very term OROP is not only a misnomer but also is deceptive. It appears that this term was probably coined 30-40 years ago, by some vested interests in order to fulfill their narrow and personal agenda. But in reality, the OROP is beneficial only to those who are higher in ranks and to those who are seniors within the rank. The longer the service is, higher the benefit is. It is hardly of any benefit to NCOs and JCOs, especially those who have been retired early in "national interest of keeping the forces young and fighting fit".

Normally when a novelist writes a story, he or she will complete the story and then look for a title appropriate to the story line. On the other hand if he/she selects the title first and then start writing the story, it is altogether a different ball game. Then the name of the novel will become more important and relevant than the story itself. This is exactly what has happened to OROP.  They have first chosen the title and then made the narrative later. They are more concerned with the definition of OROP than the reasons for which it was conceived  and it's outcome and results. It was done deliberately,  to make the story irrelevant and earn by default a windfall gain by insisting that the title is sacrosanct.

2. Why did we demand OROP? Is it merely to fill up the gap in the pension of past and present pensioners? No, not at all. We all have joined together and demanded OROP for totally different reasons like early retirement of 85% of personnel at the age of 32-37; as compensation to the drastic pension reduction effected in 1973; to make up the loss of earnings to them because the benefits given by successive Pay Commissions which could have accrued to them if they were made to retire at the normal retirement age of sixty. 

Did the proposed OROP fulfill any of the above purposes? The answer is a big NO and it did not fulfill even one purpose. Then why should we be sticking to this useless term? If it does not serve our purpose why not we dump it and look for a real  comprehensive solution to the above problems which are unique to NCOs & JCOs??

3. We don't need mere OROP. What do we need is something better than it. Something like the service-cum-compensatory- pension ( SCCP), which will have the following two elements. One, the service pension (SP) which is at present the 50% of last pay drawn on completion of 15 years of pensionable service and  the second one, the compensatory pension (CP) corresponding to the number of years service remaining between the age of actual retirement (on national interest) and the age of superannuation for central government employees ( presently 60) @1% of last pay drawn per year of remaining service subject to a maximum of 25%. The SCCP will also be suitably equalised by the future Pay Commission(s).

Accordingly the maximum of SCCP will be 75%, both the elements put together, as illustrated in the table given below:-

AGE.               SP%.    CP%    TOTAL
35 & below       50.        25.        75
36.                     50.        24.        74
37.                     50.        23.        73
38.                     50.        22.        72
39.                     50.        21.        71
40.                     50.        20.        70
45.                     50.        15.        65
50.                     50.        10.        60
55.                     50.          5.        55
56                      50.          4.        54
57.                     50.          3.        53
58.                     50.          2.        52
59.                     50.          1.        51
60.                     50.          0.        50

What are the advantages of the SCCP over OROP?

* SCCP is rational, logical, fair, scientific and above all equitable.
* SCCP addresses all the concerns of early retirees which was the very basis of OROP demand.
*  It also restores the Pre 1973 pension rates to NCOs and JCOs.
*  It is also equally fair to those
who continue in service and retire at 60 years of age. Between 35 and 60 years of age they will earn 25 annual increments @ 3% per annum, which will anyway enhance their pension by (75/2) = 37.5%, whereas the SCCP Max is only 25%.
*  In all likelihood the annual cost on exchequer due to SCCP would be much less than that of OROP.
*  None of the juniors will draw more pension than their seniors in any circumstances under SCCP
*  SCCP is legally sound and tenable as this benefit can be extended to all pensioners retired in public interest - be them from Para military forces or from civil service, provided there is a provision in their service rules for early retirement on public interest, as in defence force.
* SCCP will melt down to great extent the prevailing cold war between the buearocracy  and defence forces due to OROP and make their relationship cordial.

In any democracy it is the will of the majority that prevails. In a democratic set up, the interest of the majority is important. It is only in our defence service where the minority dominate over the majority;  the 5% of minority decide what is good or bad for the majority 95%. What an irony! The POTOs have 95% majority among military veterans. Yet our voice does not reach the ears of those who are in authority and  responsible for the welfare of the defence personnel. The adverse result of it is - the defective OROP! It is high time that  this situation is reversed.  The one who wears the shoe know better where does it hurt! Hence, we sincerely hope and request the Ministry Of Defence to consult us henceforth on all issues relating to POTOs.

Long live the unity of POTOs and AFVAI!
Sgt MPKaran 
Karnataka Chapter, AFVAI


  1. SCCP is in fact 100% genuine & most welcoming step particularly for Defense Forces, which shall be widely accepted without any single doubt for replacing the OROP in toto.

  2. Iam not sure whether this fact and fate of PBOR will reach upto RM Sir and dear NAMO!
    I believe your effort & skill will certainly be able to illuminate something to this suppressed class. Wishing every good to you and your family. Jai Hind...sgt db gohain.ex.

  3. fantastic idea....................if properly conveyed to corridor of power.