RAJASTHANI VETERANS

RAJASTHANI VETERANS
RAJASTHANI VETERANS

Wednesday 30 March 2016

An Earnest Appeal to Maj Gen Satbir Singh and his team at Jantar Mantar - Arvind Vig





IESM : Projected points for One Man Judicial Commission

25 March 2016
Justice L.Narasimha Reddy
Retired Chief Justice of Patna High Court
C/OThe Raksha Mantri
South Block, Ministry of Defence
New Delhi
Urgent Need to Rectify Anomalies in OROP
in Govt notification dated 7 Nov 15
and Tables Dated 03.02.2016
Dear Sir,
Please refer to Govt executive letter dated 26 Feb 14, press release dated 5 Sep 15, Govt notification dated 7 Nov 15 and 14 Dec 15. Please also refer to the statement made by MOS Defense Sh Rao Inderjit Singh in Parliament on 2 Dec in reply to question asked by Sh Rajeev Chandrashekharregarding implementation of OROP Also refer to Implementation Tables issued vide Govt of India letter . (All attached)
One Rank One Pension was approved by UPA Govt in budget dated 17 Feb 14 and then by NDAGovt in their budget dated 10 Jun 14. UPA Government issued an executive order dated 26 Feb 14 for the implementation of OROP dues to veterans at the earliest. This was never implemented by the MOD nor a demand note was ever raised. The approved definition of OROP by two Governments is given below.
One Rank One Pension (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.
OROP implies that a senior rank soldier should never draw pension less than his junior rank soldier. This cardinal principle is the soul of OROP and must never be violated.
Government issued a notification on 7 Nov 15 for implementing OROP. Government reiterated above-mentioned definition of OROP in the letter but introduced some conditions in the notification that completely destroy the definition approved by two parliaments. These conditions have created four anomalies which completely violates the definition and thereby, the soul of OROP. These anomalies are discussed in detail in succeeding paragraphs.
1)    Fixation of Pension on calendar year of 2013 instead of FY of 2014: Fixation of pension as per calendar year 2013 would result in past retirees getting less pension of one increment than the soldier retiring today. This will result in past retirees drawing lesser pensions than present retirees. This will completely destroy definition of OROP approved by two Parliaments and will also result in loss of one increment across the board for past pensioners in perpetuity.
2)    Fixation of pension as mean of Min and Max pension: Fixing pension as mean of Min and Max pension of 2013 would result in more anomalies wherein same ranks with same length of service will draw two or more different pensions thus violating the very principle of OROP. This issue was discussed with RM in various meetings and after due deliberations it was decided that accepting highest pension of each rank in the year would meet the requirement as base of pension.
3)    Payment wef 1st Jul 14 instead of 1st Apr 14: OROP has been approved in budget of 2014-15 by two parliaments. As per norms of Government, all proposals approved in budget are applicable from 1st April of that FY. In the case of OROP, the Govt had issued specific orders to its applicability wef 1st April 14. Hence implementation date for OROP from 1st July will be against the Parliament approval. Changing the date would result in loss of 3 months emoluments for OROP across the board. However, if OROP implementation date is to be kept as 1st July, then the base pension should also be accepted as per the PPOs of July 2014.
4)    Pension Equalisation every five year: Pension equalisation every five year will result in a senior rank soldier drawing lesser pension than a junior rank soldier for five years thus OROP definition will be violated for five years. This will also result in permanent violation of definition as fresh cases will come up every year.
5)  Errors in OROP Tables issued dated 03.02.2016:  There are numerous errors in the constitution of Tables.  How this Table have been made is not known.  The fact is that no senior rank defence personnel should ever draw less pension their junior persons.  There are numerous instances in the Tables where in the senior rank and senior in service have been shown to draw less pension then his junior.  The tables need to be worked out afresh after all anomalies have been removed.  The most appropriate method to construct Tables would be to base these tables on live data.  The PPOs of defene personnel who retired in 2013 would removal that a Sepoywith 15 years of service should  get pension of approx Rs 7200 per month where as in the Tables, pension has been mentioned as Rs 6665/-.  This does not satisfy the approved OROP definition.  There are minimum such examples.  Nb Subedar of ‘Y’ group has been shown to get less then X Gp Havildar this making a senior rank defence, personal gets less than junior rank.  Nb Sub TA is shown getting more pension then Regular Nb Sub.  The three Service HQs pay cells must be involved in making this Table afresh

These anomalies will result in lesser pensions to widows, soldiers, NCOs and JCOs than what will be due to them on approval of OROP. This will result in veterans not getting OROP as per approved definition and will create large discontentment across all ranks.
There is a need to have a relook at the pensions of Hon Nb Subedars, Majors and Lt Cols.
a)     Some Havildars are granted rank of Hon Naib Subedar in view of their exemplary service. These soldiers are not granted pension of Naib Subedar thus making the Hon rank just ceremonial. It is requested that Hon Naib Subedars should get pension of a Naib Subedar rather than that of a Havildar. Similarly, this must be accepted as a principle and it should be applicable to all Hon ranks in case of NCOs and JCOs.

b)    There are only a few Majors as veterans. Moreover no officer is retiring in Major rank now. In the past, officers were promoted to Major rank after completing 13 yrs of service whereas present officers are getting promotion of Lt Col in 13 yrs. It will be justified to grant all pensioners of the rank of Major, minimum pension of Lt Col as they cannot be compared to present retirees as officers are not retiring as Majors any more. Number of such affected officers is not more than 800 and will not cause heavy burden to Govt.
c)     Similarly, all pre-2004 retiree Lt Cols should get the minimum pension of full Col. Presently all officers retire in the rank of Colonel hence all Lt Col equivalents should be granted min pension of Colonels.

          The above anomalies/discrepancies are being brought before you for resolution please.
          We will be available for the Presentation/discussion any time and date convenient to you.
With regards,
Yours Sincerely,
Maj Gen Satbir Singh, SM (Retd)
Chairman Indian Ex-Servicemen Movement (IESM )
Mobile: 9312404269, 01244110570 
Email:satbirsm@gmail.com      

************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
SECOND LETTER

25 March 2016
Justice L.Narasimha Reddy
Retired Chief Justice of Patna High Court
C/OThe Raksha Mantri
South Block, Ministry of Defence
New Delhi

Change of Definition of OROP
in Various Correspondence of DESW Noticed

Dear Sir,
Pl refer to:
1.   MOD letter no 12(01/2014-D (Pen/Pol) dated 26 Feb 14
2.   MOM of the meeting chaired by RM on 26 Feb 14 to discuss OROP
3.   Reply of MOS Defense Sh Rao Inderjit Singh Dated 2 Dec 14 in a written reply toSh Rajeev Chandrashekhar in Rajya Sabha
4.   GOI press release dated 5 Sep 15
5.   GOI letter no 12(1)/2014 dated 7 Nov 15 and
6.   GOI letter no 12(01)/2014-D(pen/pol)- Part–II dated 14 Dec 15
GOI has accepted following definition of OROP in the letters dated 26 Feb 14 and MOS statement in Rajya Sabha dated 2 Dec 14.

One Rank One Pension (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.

However in the Press Release dated 5 Sep 14, a phrase has been added at the end of the OROP definition “at periodic intervals”.

Definition of OROP given in 5 Sep Press Release is given below:

One Rank One Pension (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. 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 at periodic intervals.

This phrase has probably been added to justify pension equalisation every five years as is being propagated by the MOD.

Again, another attempt has been made to change/ distort the definition of OROP in GOI notification dated 7 Nov 15. OROP definition given in 7 Nov letter is reproduced below.

One Rank One Pension (OROP) implies that uniform pension be paid to the Defence Forces Personnel retiring in the same rank with the same length of service, regardless of their date of retirement, which implies bridging the gap between the rate of pension of the current pensioners and the past pensioners at periodic intervals.

I am sure you would notice subtle progressive change in the language of definition of OROP, wherein the line “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 pensioner” has been changed with the line “This implies bridging the gap between the rate of pension of the current pensioners and the past pensioners at periodic intervals”.

It further states as one of the salient features that it has been decided that the gap between rate of pension of current pensioners and past pensioners would be refixed every five years.

This completely changes the definition of OROP and if implemented in its changed form, it will deprive past pensioners of monetary benefits and will completely destroy the definition of OROP and in turn, destroy the very soul of OROP.

UFESM (JM) believes that this change in the definition in OROP has been inserted only to justify pension equalisation every five years. Pension equalisation every five years is against the definition of OROP and is a matter of serious concern for all Ex-servicemen. The correct and acceptable situation is that pension equalisation must be done as soon as pension of two soldiers with same rank and same length of service is noticed to be different and it must be equalised immediately. Ex-servicemen are ready to accept pension equalisation every year only to make administration of this concept easily implementable. Incidentally, any computation can be easily achieved on press of a button in today’s computer era – and this needs no emphasis.

However the matter did not end at one instance of change of definition of OROP, it has been once again repeated in GOI letter dated 14 Dec 15 “OROP implies that uniform pension be paid to the Defence Forces Personnel retiring in the same rank with the same length of service, regardless of their date of retirement, which implies that bridging the gap between the rate of pension of current and past pensioners at periodic intervals”.

The GOI letter dated 14 Dec 15 is the notification for the formation of one-man judicial committee. It is a matter of great importance that if incorrect definition is given to the Chairman of anomalies committee, he is bound to work within the constraints given by MOD and will thus give his recommendations as per incorrect definition given to him. This will be gross injustice to ex-servicemen. Ex-servicemen might be justified to think that these changes are a planned move for the vexed problem of OROP in view of the past experiences in which meanings of Honorable Supreme Court orders were changed by making subtle changes in the decision of HSC.

We sincerely hope that these changes are probably only clerical errors and not a planned direction change. We therefore sincerely request you to correct these mistakes in definition of OROP and give following definition approved by Parliament to all committees.

One Rank One Pension (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.


May we request for resolution of the serious anomaly since it changes the soul of approved OROP definition as per Govt Executive Order dated 26 Feb 2014 and also given out byMoS State Defence Sh. Rao Inderjit Singh dated 02 Dec 2014 in the Parliament.  IESM will be available for personal hearing on any date and time convenient please. 

          With regards,
Yours Sincerely,
Maj Gen Satbir Singh, SM (Retd)
Chairman Indian Ex-Servicemen Movement (IESM )
Mobile: 9312404269, 01244110570 
Email:satbirsm@gmail.com       

Source - indianmilitaryveterans blogs 

Monday 21 March 2016

Implementation of ‘One Rank One Pension’(OROP) to Defence pensioners- Clarification/Amendment (circular No 555)

Implementation of ‘One Rank One Pension’(OROP) to Defence pensioners
OFFICE OF THE PR. CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS (PENSIONS)
DRAUPADI GHAT, ALLAHABAD- 211014
Circular No. 557
Subject: Implementation of ‘One Rank One Pension’(OROP) to Defence pensioners.
Reference: This office circular No 555 dated 04.02.2016.
A comprehensive list of maximum term of engagement for JCOs/ORs was enclosed as Appendix-X to this office Circular No. 555 dated 4.2.2016 has been slightly amended as under:-
Rank
Period
For
Read
Naik (Regular Army)
1.6.1953 to 30.11.1976
22 years
20 years

1.12.1976 to 29.5.1998
24 years
22 years

30.5.1998 till date
26 years
24 years
Naik (DSC)
1.6.1953 to 30.11.1976
22 years
20 years
Hony captain (DSC)
Below Exceptions
5.12.1972 to 31.12.1972

5.02.1972 to 31.12.1972
2. Similarly, slightly amended comprehensive list of equivalence of ranks in the three services of Armed Forces is enclosed as Appendix ‘Y’ to this Circular which would substitute the Appendix-‘Y’ of the Circular No. 555 dated 04.02.2016.
3.PDAs have reported some difficulties on certain points while implementing the scheme of ‘OROP’. Necessary clarification in the matter is as under:-
Sl.No
Clarification required
Clarification
1
In the absence of qualifying service, it would be extremely difficult to revise LFP/ SFP as per Circular No. 555?
In case, any information regarding qualifying service, rank, group etc., is not available with PDAs, such cases may be referred to Pension Sanctioning Authorities concerned in the proforma enclosed as Annexure-‘A’ to the Govt. Letter No. (1)/2014/D (Pen/Policy)-Part-II dated 3rd Feb, 2016. All PDAs are therefore, requested to send Annexure-A both in hard and soft copy by name to Shri Ram Ji Mishra, Sr. AO (Sangam Cell) on e-mail ID: cda-albd@nic.in. Meanwhile,  as  an   interim measure, if qualifying service is not available  in case of family pension, minimum family pension rate payable for that particular rank and group w.e.f. 01.07.2014 (as per Circular No.555 dated 04.02.2016) may be paid.
2
In the absence of Group/ Qualifying service, revision as per Circular 502 was done by revising family pension for the lowest group in the start of the table. Now in the present OROP orders, the tables start from 0.5 yrs and therefore cases where group/ Q.S. is not available cannot be revised.
If the group of the service pensioner is not available in the PPOs/ Corrigendum PPOs, pension of lowest group (i.e. for group Y for  the time being) for that rank and qualifying service may be paid until receipt of clarification from the PSAs concerned.
3
It is not clear whether the LTA is payable in one lump sum or 4 equal installments?
Arrears on account of revision of pension and LTA from 1.7.2014 to 02.03.2016 shall be paid by the Pension Disbursing Agencies in four equal half-yearly instalments and not in lump- sum. However, all the family pensioners including those in receipt of Special/ Liberalized Family Pension and all Gallantry award winners shall be paid arrears in one instalment as per Para 17 of the Circular No. 555 dated 04.02.2016.
4
PDAs find it extremely difficult to identify HAG+ rank?
The rank of Lt. Gen (HAG+) was introduced after 01.01.2006. Hence, rank of Lt. Gen (HAG+) is found only in Post-01.01.2006 cases. In such cases, pay scale for that    rank i.e. Rs. 75500-80000 is mentioned in the PPO. For Pre-2006 cases, pension of HAG will be payable to retired Lt. Generals, unless retired in the rank of Army Commander or equivalent. Same applies to equivalent ranks in Air Force and Navy.
5
Tables 97-101 give the revised pension payable in respect of Pre-01.06.1953 and State Forces pensioners. Whether family pensioners of the above category (particularly State Force pensioners) are entitled for OROP revision and if so at what rates?
Rates shown in Table No. 97-101 attached with Circular No. 555 are for Pre-01.06.1953 retirees. These tables are showing Service Element/ Service Pension rates. Cases of Family/ Disability/ War Injury Pension in r/o Pre-01.06.1953 retirees shall be submitted to this office for revision through Corr PPO. The same applies to State Forces pensioners.
6
No equivalence has been prescribed for Cadets?
The Cadets are granted monthly ex-gratia and same is treated differently from pension and therefore, cases of Cadets are regulated separately as per the existing provisions. Hence Circular No. 555 is not applicable in case of Cadets.
7
Annexure E to F to Circular No. 500 dated 17.01.2013 gives the rates for revised pension payable to Pre-96 EC/SSC Officers and to Post-96 EC/SSC Officers. It is common table irrespective of Pre or Post- 96 retirees. Whether pension shall be revised for Pre-96 EC/ SSC Officers as per Table 5 & 6 of Circular 555?
As per Govt. letter No. 12(1)/2014/ D(Pen/Policy) Part-II dated  07.11.2015 “OROP implies that uniform pension to be paid to the Defence Forces Personnel retiring in the same rank with the same length of service, regardless of their date of retirement.”

The pension of all past pensioners will be determined according to the above principle.
8
It is mentioned that Corr PPOs have been issued admitting pension for the rank of Lt. Col. In respect of Major with 21 years Qualifying Service. Then how to revise the pension for Major (post 96 cases) with 21 years Qualifying Service?
All substantive Majors retired on or after 1.1.1996 but before 01.01.2006, who had completed 21 years of commissioned service and were granted pay of Lt. Col. as per Para 5(a) (iii) and 5 (a) (iv) of Special Army Instruction 2/S/98. Such Majors have been allowed the benefit of revision of pension as per rates of Lt. Col. under 6th CPC on the authority of GoI, MoD Deptt. of Ex-Service Welfare letter No. 1(13)/2009/D(Pen/Policy) dated 24th sept 2012. In these cases, Corr PPO’s have been issued by concerned PSAs revising pension under 6th CPC. Pension of such Majors may also be revised as per the table applicable to Lt. Col. However, in case of any doubt, the case may please be referred to PSAs concerned for clarification.
9
Whether PDAs are authorized to revise the pension to Subedar Major granted ACP I & ACP II for the rank of Hony Lt and Hony Captain?
In case ACP is granted, pension of next higher rank will be admissible to the pensioner. In case of Subedar Major who got ACP-I, pension may be revised for Hony. Lt. But it is not likely that ACP-II is granted to a Subedar Major, so if any case of Subedar Major with ACP-II comes into the knowledge, the same may be forwarded for clarification.
10
The difference between Artificer III-I and Artificer I, II, III may please be explained.
The   same   has   been   reflected   in  revised Annexure-Y attached with this Circular.
11
Orders were issued vide Circular 456 dated 18.03.2011 for broad banding of disability element whereby disability element sanctioned at rates lower than 50% was brought up to 50%. In cases where broad banding has been carried out, it is not beneficial to revise disability at rates lower than 50%. As such no revision has been effected in such cases and current rate of disability element has been retained. It may be confirmed that this is in order.
As already clarified in various circulars issued by this office, the Disability Element shall be proportionately reduced for disability which is less than 100%.
Accordingly, in case of broad- banding of disability element, benefit of broad banding may be granted to the individual. Further, Para-6 of ibid GoI, MoD letter  dated 03.02.2016 may be referred to wherein it is stated that if the revised pension as on 01.07.2014 works out to less than the existing pension as on 01.07.2014 in terms of these orders, the pension shall not be revised to the disadvantage of the pensioner.
12
Whether Qualifying Service (Q.S.) is to be taken as actual or with weightage?
In Post-2006 retirees cases, weightage had been withdrawn from Qualifying Service. Therefore, the qualifying service mentioned in OROP table is actual qualifying service only. No weightage in qualifying service is to be allowed at all while extending the benefit of OROP  in  past  cases.  For  example,  if actual Q.S. was ‘q’ years and weightage, if any, was ‘y’ years, the pension indicated in the concerned table for ‘q’ years only is to be paid to the pensioner.
13
Whether the amount mentioned in Column 22 of Table No. 7 is applicable to all category of pensioners?
Column 22 of Table No. 7 is applicable to all NCs(E) of the three services i.e. Army, Navy & Air Force.
No. Gts/Tech/0167/XXII
Dated 17.03.2016
(NASIM ULLAH)
Asst. Controller (P)
APPENDIX ‘Y’
A. EQUIVALENCE OF RANKS IN THE THREE SERVICES OF ARMED FORCES
Indian Commissioned Officer (ICOs)
ARMY
NAVY
AIR FORCE
Lieutenant
Sub Lt.
Plt. Offr./  Flg Offr.
Captain
Lt.
Flt. Lt.
Major
Lt. Cdr.
Sqn. Ldr.
Lt.Col.(TS)
Cdr. (TS)
Wg. Cdr. (TS)
Lt. Col. (S)
Cdr. (S)
Wg. Cdr. (S)
Colonel (TS)
Captain(TS)
Group Captain (TS)
Colonel
Captain
Group Captain
Brigadier
Commodore
Air Commodore
Major General
Rear Admiral
Air Vice Marshal
Lt. General
Vice Admiral
Air Marshal
Lt. General (HAG+)
Vice Admiral (HAG+)
Air Marshal (HAG+)
Lt. General (Army Cdr.)
Vice Admiral (FOC-in- C)
Air Marshal (AOC-in- C)
DGAFMS
————————
————————
Vice Chief of Army Staff
Vice Chief of Naval Staff
Vice Chief of Air Staff
Chief of Army Staff
Chief of Naval Staff
Chief of Air Staff
Note: The rank of Lt. General (HAG+) and equivalent exists only in Post 2006 cases.
B.JUNIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICERS (JCOs) AND OTHER RANKS (ORs)
ARMY
AIF FORCE
NAVY
Sepoy
AC/ LAC
Seaman- I & II  and equivalent
Naik/ L Dafadar
Corporal
Leading Seaman & equivalent
Havildar/ Dafadar
Sergeant
Petty Officer/Mech-IV/Artificer-IV
—-
—-
Artificer-III-I/Mech-III-I
Nb Subedar/ Nb Risaldar/ Jamadar
JWO
CPO/ Chief Artificer / Chief Mech
Subedar/ Risaldar
WO
Master Chief Petty Officer- II Master Chief Mech- II Master Chief Art- II
Sub Major
MWO
Master Chief Petty Officer – I Master Chief Mech- I
Master Chief Art- I
NCs(E)
NCs(E), Tindal, Head Tindal

Note: Recruits are equivalent to Sepoy (Lowest group)
C.HONORARY RANKS (JCOs)
ARMY
AIF FORCE
NAVY
Sub/Hony Lt
WO/Hony Fly. Officer
MCPO-II/Sub Lt
Sub Maj/Hony Lt
MWO/Hony Fly. Officer
MCPO-I/Sub Lt
Sub/Hony Capt
WO/Hony Flt. Lt.
MCPO-II/Hony Lt
Sub Maj/Hony Capt.
MWO/Hony Flt. Lt.
MCPO-I/Hony Lt
Equivalent rank of three services of Armed Forces personnel has been given in Appendix Y (not as appendix Z as mention in above cited circular) and the same is slightly amended and uploaded to the website of this office.

1396