FLASH

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

FLASH

WATCH THIS BLOG REGULARY FOR LATEST NEWS ON ONE RANK ONE PENSION & OTHER SERVICE BENEFITS RELATING TO EX-SERVICE PENSIONERS #

Sunday, 24 January 2016

"1:2200000 RATIO" DOES OROP MEAN ONE RANK TEN PENSIONS? SOME STRAIGHT QUESTIONS!

        The OROP being demanded by some of the ESM associations is not objective and  is heavily loaded in favour of retired officers. They are in fact misguiding the retired NCOs and JCOs by wrongly projecting themselves as if they are fighting for the  benefit of all.
(1) Their contention that the armed forces personnel start retiring very early from the age of 33,  is true only in the case of  NCOs and JCOs since the Commissioned Officers normally retire only at 54. How can they then expect these two different groups of personnel to be treated equally for the purpose of OROP and expect to be computed by an uniform formula? What is the additional consideration available in the proposed OROP scheme for those who retire very early at the age of 33?? If there is no difference in consideration between those who retire at 33 and 54,  and if they are to be governed by the same formula and yardstick then why should there be a difference in consideration between those who retire at 54 and 60?
(2) Their contention that the OROP was in existence until 1973 and the same has been denied thereafter is true However, in 1973  the pension of NCOs and JCOs was 70% of the pay and their OROP was also calculated on that basis, while the pension of the officers was only 50% of their pay and their OROP must have been calculated only on that basis. But the current OROP being demanded will be based on 50% of the pay for both the groups. How is it justified?? Further with the Introduction of MSP after 6CPC, the reckonable emoluments of officers for the purpose of pension has increased exponentially taking their OROP figure to  much higher level than the NCOs & JCOs who are only benefited marginally with the MSP.
(3) The demand of officers to fix their pension at the maximum of the scale is also another veiled attempt to reap as much benefit as possible to themselves. It is an undeniable fact which everyone of us has witnessed over the years that the officers prefer to compare themselves with the IAS officers wherever it is beneficial to them and at other times they will join with the NCOs and JCOs, if that benefits them. They want to eat the cake and have it too and that too always!!!!. For the purpose of pension at the maximum of the scale and OROP they felt it is beneficial to be with the NCOs and JCOs and so dragged us to JM in the name of an united agitation. At the same time they fix frequent unscheduled meetings with the 'Powers-that-be' and agree to the proposals of the government which may neither be beneficial nor in the interest of PBORs. One such decision is agreeing to retain the X and Y group of ORs for the purpose of OROP. The simple question is: who are they to agree and decide things on our behalf? It is unheard in the history of any democratic country or institution that a group which is only a minuscule part of the entire group take decisions on behalf of the majority which is almost 95% , without even consulting or informing them?? Can this be considered as part and parcel of the ethos and discipline of the Armed Forces?? Will they  accept payment of lower OROP for the officers belonging to Administration branch than the officers of other branches like the Flying Branch ? If not, then why not ??
(4) Therefore the bottom line is that we are not happy with what is proposed to be given as OROP to us. The real OROP for NCOs and JCOs should be different from the officers who normally retire 20 years after the retirement of a Sepoy, Naik or Havildar. The advantage of 20 years more service gives them the benefit of 2 additional pay commissions; at the least 20 annual increments @ 3% every year thereby taking their pay 60% higher and their pension 30% higher. Therefore the fair and equitable OROP for NCOs and JCOs should provide for the following vital aspects:-
(a) Adequate compensation for very  early retirement commencing at the age of 33 years which deprives them 2 CPC benefits and 20 annual increments. This should be IN ADDITION TO THE OROP to be calculated on an uniform formula applicable to  both the retired officers and ORs.
(b) Since the MSP will have substantial bearing on the quantum of OROP payable, unless all ranks of the Armed Forces are paid the SAME AMOUNT OF MSP, there cannot be any meaningful or equitable OROP. Even otherwise we donot see any logic or valid ground for different MSP for different categories of personnel of the Armed forces, since all of them are exposed to the same and equal difficulties and hardships of Military life.
(c) The quantum of pension for NCOs and JCOs should be RESTORED TO THE PRE-1973 LEVEL OF 70% and then the OROP should be computed on the basis of it.
(d) The OROP of the same rank of NCOs and JCOs should be equal irrespective of their group. Any attempt to retain the groups is contrary to the basic definition of OROP included in the Koshiyari Committee Report ; it will be ONE RANK TWO PENSIONS. Further, if UFESM describes the proposed OROP as One Rank Five Pensions, then does it not amount to ONE RANK TEN PENSIONS FOR NCOs & JCOs?
(e) The most important point is that there should be consultation with all stake holders and especially with those who are directly affected by the decision. The practice of making the officers who just constitute less than 5% of the defence personnel to take decisions on behalf of 95% of the community and make them to suffer perennially, in the name of discipline is neither appropriate nor acceptable.
(f) There is lot of confusion created about applicability of OROP for pre-matured retirement cases.  As per the statistics available in public domain approximately about 12000-15000 PBORs and about 300-500 officers seek PMR every year. This information is incorrect and wilfully spread by them so that the NCOs and JCOs would become anxious and join the agitation in large numbers. If we read carefully the OROP notification issued by the MOD, you will realise that the notification does not speak of PMR. It only speaks of "discharge on own request (DOOR)"
It will be interesting to note that THE ARMY PENSION REGULATION  stipulates discharge  on the following circumstances are neither construed as PMR nor as DOOR:
(i) on completion of tenure
(ii) on completion of service limit (iii)on completion of terms of engagement
(iv) on attaining the prescribed age of retirement and
(v) who seeks within one month pre-mature retirement/discharge within one month on request for the purpose of getting higher commutation.
There will hardly be any PBOR who would  opt for discharge other than on any of the above grounds. These are only those rare cases of PBORs seeking PMR/ discharge on personal compassionate grounds. These cases can easily be identified from their discharge books, where it is explicitly recorded as  "discharge on own request" against reason for discharge. Only such DOOR cases and that too the FUTURE ones will be denied OROP as per the notification issued by GOI. It is  possible that this kind of discharge among officers could be more in number. The officers who are offered senior level posts in public sector undertakings & Autonomous bodies opt for DOOR in order to take up such positions and this happens frequently among them. This also happens in some rarest of rare cases where the officer or the PBOR concerned is instructed by the department  to seek the DOOR for some obvious reasons. Hence the statistics of 12000 - 15000 PBORs opting every year for such discharge on own request is absolutely wrong. It's a mischief intended to create unnecessary anxiety among PBORs. Let us not be carried away by such statistics.BEWARE OF SUCH FALSE & MALICIOUS PROPAGANDA!
Finally, it would be in our own interest and particularly in the interest of  those veterans who are in advanced age to accept the OROP currently being offered by the GOI and then take up for revision of the same ON THE ABOVE VALID GROUNDS with the one man judicial commission already appointed to look into the anomalies concerning OROP. If necessary, the legal remedy is also available to us as a last resort.
Sgt MPKaran
President
Karnataka state Chapter AFVAI

6 comments:

  1. System needs all created anolomy and generated by pay commission rebook. All issues like msp and groups also disability cases. Otherwise suffered by new generation of lower rank like ors and nco as well as jcos

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you Sgt MP Karan for surfacing the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  3. We PBOR should fight independently not depend upon the officers. We know that they are not doing agitation at jm for pbor only for themselves. Their selfishness knows everyone. They are habitual to drink DFR Liquor and payment Liquor for pbor, chicken for officer's mess and Capsul(Rajmah) for pbor.

    ReplyDelete
  4. nicely drafted

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dear karan sir
    please see the extract of ur article above "Their contention that the OROP was in existence until 1973 and the same has been denied thereafter is true However, in 1973 the pension of NCOs and JCOs was 70% of the pay and their OROP was also calculated on that basis, while the pension of the officers was only 50% of their pay and their OROP must have been calculated only on that basis. But the current OROP being demanded will be based on 50% of the pay for both the groups. How is it justified?? Further with the Introduction of MSP after 6CPC, the reckonable emoluments of officers for the purpose of pension has increased exponentially taking their OROP figure to much higher level than the NCOs & JCOs who are only benefited marginally with the MSP."This fact need to be understood by every ORs/JCOs wheter he is serving or discharged. this fact has to be made known to our political MPs. Probably they may takeup the matter at Political/parliament level.it is a type of aparthied policy followed by all ESMs with officers at helm. let us think of undoing this aparthied policy for ever .
    thank you sir

    ReplyDelete

EXSERVICEMEN BENEFITS