1. THE CONCEPT OF ONE RANK ONE PENSION IMPLIES “ALL DEFENSE PERSONNEL, RETIRED OR WILL EVER RETIRE WEARING THE SAME RANK, HAVING RENDERED THE SAME LENGTH OF SERVICE BEFORE THEIR RETIREMENT, FOR THE NATIONAL SECURITY; THEY SHOULD GET SAME AMOUNT OF PENSION, IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR PAST OR FUTURE DATES OF RETIREMENTS.
2. It is ridiculous that Govt intentionally does not want to comprehend as to what the OROP is. No one asks the Govt. whether it has accepted the OROP as defined or according to what it thinks. Hence, it keeps befooling the defense personnel, all political leaders and public by announcing that the OROP is accepted, where as it is nowhere near the truth.
3. The Finance Minister announced in his budget speech that Govt has accepted OROP and earned applauds of his own party MPs and none else. Def Minister too announced in his public meetings that OROP for commissioned officers as well as for PBOR has been accepted and approved, which too is far from the truth.
4. Strangely, the PM too announced on 15 Aug 2009 from the Red Fort of the acceptance of OROP and snubbed the opposition party leader of the status of Mr. L K Advani in the present Parliament session which too is false. It is sad that Mr. L K Advani could not respond since he may not be well aware of the fact and detailed requirement pertaining to the OROP.
5. Nevertheless, Govt and the above dignitaries should reply if the OROP has been accepted according to what it is defined what being asked for (defined above). In fact none of the Ministers have time to discuss or know as to what the OROP is and why is it being asked for such a long time? The are guided/dictated by their staff/IAS officers who always have been against defense forces and do whatever they want for themselves.
The full details are beng addressed as under:
To
1. The Hon’ble President of India.
2. The Hon’ble Vice President.
3. The Hon’ble Speaker of the Lok Sabha.
4. The Hon’ble Chair person of UPA.
5. The Hon’ble Prime Minister.
6. All the Hon’ble Ministers of the Govt.
7. The Hon’ble MPs of the country.
8. The Hon’ble concerned authorities.
9. All the Hon’ble luminaries and citizens of the great beloved motherland "THE INDIA".
SUBJECT: DIVIDING THE DEFENSE PENSIONERS AND CREATING DISCRIMINATION FOR:
1. APPROVING ONE RANK AND ONE PENSION.
2. INCARPORATITING A CLAUSE OF PRO RATA OF 33YEARS FOR CALCULATING PENSION FOR PRE-2006 PENSIONERS.
PROLOGUE.
1. In accordance with the contents of Article 14, this paper is to throw light on similarly circumstanced country men who cannot be and must not be arbitrarily divided or categorized or classified by the state for debarring some of them from the benefits whenever announced by the Govt.
2. Already existing classifications/categories of pensioners are founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes pensioners that are grouped together. Whenever and wherever, the state has ever made any deceptive efforts to further classify the pensioners for its own financial or any other interest, but that was against pensioners in financial or in any other manners, it was checked by the Law of the Land. Many of the courts of the country including the Apex court of India always stood by Article 14, which forbade the Govt. from doing so. However, at times the Judicial does get influenced by the Govt. and becomes unable to deliver its justified judgement. Nevertheless Article 14 is therefore specifically incorporated in the constitution to ensure fairness and equality of treatment to all the countrymen of the nation, so that all of them are treated alike both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed by the state or any of the state’s authorities.
A BRIEF SUMMARY OF ARTICLE 14.
Article 14 of the constitution strikes at arbitrariness of the State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment to all the country men of India. This article is attracted where equals are treated differently without any reasonable basis. The principle making the guarantee, compulsory and obligatory is that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. Equal laws would have to be applied to all the persons happened to be in the same situation and there should be no discrimination between one class of persons from the other classes of similar persons as regards the subject-matter of the legislation, their position is substantially the same.
3. The Article 14 further explicitly and unambiguously forbids class division by the state. This Article, unequivocally explains that the classification already made is founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those that are left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question.
ENTITLEMENT OF PENSION.
4. It is well known that the pension is a right and not a bounty or gratuitous benefit. The payment of pension does not depend upon the discretion of the Government alone but it is governed as per the constitution of the nation and by the rules framed by the parliament. Thus, a government servant coming within the preview of those rules is entitled to claim the pension.
DIVIDING THE DEFENSE PENSIONERS IN VARIOUS CLASSES.
5. Since the inception of defense forces, the retired defense pensioners have just in one class; irrespective of ranks they wear called ex-servicemen or defense pensioners. Whenever the pensionary benefits were ever enhanced by the Govt., these have been made applicable to all the pensioners, irrespective of their dates of retirements or ranks they wore.
6. It is very heartbreaking to state that, Just to partially approving the concept of OROP and debarring/denying the benefit to a large number of defense pensioners, the Govt. of India have divided one united and unified homogeneous class of ex-servicemen/defense pensioners in number of classes as under:
a. Firstly: Post 2006 defense pensioners but retired before Sep 2008 and retired after Sep 2008.
b. Secondly: Pre-2006 defense pensioners.
c. Pre-2006 defense pensioners, who have been further divided in other two classes:
d. Firstly: Pre-1997 defense pensioners.
e. Secondly: Post 1997 defense pensioners upto Dec 31 2005.
f. Thirdly, defense pensioners, who retired before 1997.The CPCs have once again divided the defense pensioners in other two classes:
g. Firstly, defense pensioners that of personnel below officers’ ranks (PBOR).
h. Secondly, defense pensioners of officers’ ranks.
i. The division did not stop here itself. The govt. just to re-introduce the pro rata clause of 33 years, have also divided all pensioners i.e. the defense pensioners as well as civilian central govt. pensioners in two additional classes:
j. Firstly, post 2006 pensioners to give full pension on completion of 20 years service.
k. And secondly, pre-2006 pensioners to re-fix their pension on the bases of completion of 33 years of service pro rata basis. This arbitrary division is done by the Govt. in spite of the fact that 6th CPC has completely removed this earlier existing clause. This division of pensioners in this manner is just for applying pro rata of 33 years in the cases of pre-2006 pensioners alone.
7. Such divisions were never made in the past for granting any pensionary benefit to a few of them and debarring all others after any of the Central Pay Commissions.
8. The above illegitimate and arbitrary divisions have been designed by the Govt. with ulterior motive and maligned intention to deny pensionary benefits to the defense pensioners wearing same ranks and render same length of service. This has never happened in the past that one part of defense pensioners is to be given enhanced pensionary benefits and other ones are to be denied/debarred. The govt. has intentionally divided the defense pensioners with ulterior, underhanded, mysterious and inexplicable motive so they must not be able to put forth their grievances unitedly.
9. It is surprising to note that the Govt. has adopted this sort of a policy of dividing the defense pensioners who always have been nation’s bravest heroes, most sincere, honest, loyal, faithful, obedient, dutiful, submissive, docile, tractable, and disciplined soldiers during their entire service. This has been done in spite of the fact that they served the nation in most hostile, unfavourable conditions and difficult terrains on the national borders to safe guard its safety and security. They fought against external and internal enemies, without caring for their own life as well as future of their families and children. The Govt at least is never expected to do so, rather, must have some soft corner to do justice to the defense services pensioners, who have given their entire prime youth in the service of the nation.
MANDATORY REQUIREMENT OF SPECIAL WELFARE MEASURES FOR DEFENSE PERSONNEL.
10. It is that of paramount importance that soldiers’ welfare while they are in serve as well after their retirement must be taken care of, so that they do not have to worry, vacillate, remain anxious, agonize, and lose sleep and their proficiency, competence, performance, drive and their morale is never effected adversely. If it is not done, their morale, self-confidence, self-esteem, and buoyancy of the soldiers are likely to be effected most adversely.
CONCEPT OF ONE RANK ONE PENSION (OROP).
11. PRINCIPALLY, THE CONCEPT OF ONE RANK ONE PENSION (OROP) IMPLIES THAT, ALL THE DEFENSE PERSONNEL, WHO HAVE RETIRED OR WILL BE RETIRING WEARING THE SAME RANK HAVING RENDERED SAME LENGTH OF SERVICE BEFORE THEIR RETIREMENT, SHOULD ALWAYS GET SAME AMOUNT OF PENSION, IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR PAST OR FUTURE DATES OF RETIREMENTS AND TOTAL LENGTH OF SERVICE THEY RENDERED OR WILL EVER RENDER FOR THE NATIONAL SECURITY.
12. The demand of “One Rank One Pension (OROP)” of defense personnel is long outstanding and has been raised time and again by the defense personnel/pensioners. Unfortunately and regrettably, all the preceding CENTAL PAY COMMISSIONS (CPCs) and the Governments have been shying away, refusing, declining,, throwing out, denying, and thrusting aside this legitimate demand for decades. It is mentioned with anguish, agony, pain, grief and distress that it had been happening despite the fact that main national political parties of the country like National Congress Party and Bhartia Janta Party, have been including this demand in their previous election manifestoes. This subject was also included in the President’s address in the Parliament in 2004, thereby making One Rank One Pension (OROP) the declared policy of Government (not that of any particular political party).
13. Pertinently, the National Congress party and Bhatia Janta party had incorporated in their previous election manifesto before the preceding general election to approve the concept of providing One Rank One Pension, the long outstanding demand of defense pensioners. None of the political party mentioned that the concept of OROP will be approved in the case of a few of the defense pensioners by dividing them in various classes. Accordingly, the issue was taken up by the present UPA Govt from the very beginning on the power of its second tenure.
CONSTITUTION OF HIGH POWERED COMMITTED TO CONSIDER OROP
FOR DEFENSE PENSIONERS.
14. On continuous persisting the demand and promises made by ruling and other major opposition political parties, as well incorporating in the Presidential address of the parliament house the Govt. decided to constituting a high powered committee.
15. The Committee headed by the Cabinet Secretary Mr. K M Chandrasekhar, the Senior Most IAS officer of the country was constituted by the Govt. to consider ONE RANK ONE PENSION (OROP) for the defense pensioners.
16. It is very agonizing, excruciating, painful, distressing and heartbreaking to state that the Committee did not put any efforts to formulate the report on OROP with clear heart and mind except referring the previous reports on the subject and summarizing them as its recommendations. Rather, the report seems to have been prepared with biased, prejudiced, predisposed, skewed and subjective mind.
17. In fact, even otherwise, how the committee could have done justice to the requirement of OROP when none of the members of the Committee had any physical or practical experience or knowledge of service conditions of the armed forces which warrant special considerations to afford them attractive and better pay and allowances during the service and pension after their retirement?
18. Nevertheless, the defense forces pensioners never expected that such a Committee could have ever done justice since none them has ever been associated with Armed Forces, nor any of their children, wards or relatives have remained part of the Armed Forces. Even, none of them will ever like their children/wards to join the Armed Forces even ever in future.
19. Rather, it is beyond anyone’s imagination as to how the Govt. selected the constituent members of the so called High Power Committee, which is absolutely unfair, unjust, inequitable, iniquitous, unwarranted, discriminatory and unbalanced.
20. It would have been prudent and practical if such a Committee would have been large enough consisting of some senior ministers, M Ps from each political parties, serving Chiefs/Vice Chief of Defense Services Staff, retired Chiefs/Vice Chief of Defense Services Staff, learned luminaries as well some of the members of serving as well as retired officers and PBOR pensioners. Such members could have brought out the facts of the case on the bases of which the demand of OROP is being projected since decades, thereby helped the Committee to consider the genuineness and justification of the subject matter and done justice with the same.
21. It is known to the countrymen that IAS Officers being in the helm of affairs; dictate and direct the Govt. and its ministers to do whatever is possible for the benefit and welfare for their own fraternity and none else. Hence such a committee of IAS officers alone must not have bee constituted.
22. Surprisingly, The Committee did not even care to consult any of the Chiefs of Armed Forces or members of Indian Ex-servicemen Movement and other Associations of Ex-Servicemen, who have been struggling to implement OROP since decades.
23. The manner and approach the report of ONE RANK ONE PENSION (OROP) prepared by the high powered Committee was never expected to be formulated as was constituted. The report of 21 pages or so seems to have been prepared by the Committee most callously, carelessly, casually, dispassionately, imperturbably, heedlessly, offhandedly, indifferently and nonchalantly. The report is absolutely and enormously painful, nasty, eyewash, mean-spirited, unkind, cruel, callous, uncaring, heartless, merciless, selfish. The veterans can not be and must not be deceived with such a redundant and superfluous report.
24. The Committee on every point has been putting forward its argument that if the OROP is given to the defense forces pensioners; it should be given to the IAS Officers also. Rather, this has always been the logic, argument and thinking of the IAS officers. For this reason, the committee decided not to propose OROP to the defense pensioners, especially the retired commissioned Officers.
25. Truly speaking, from the arguments put forth by the committee, it seems that they were considering the OROP for their own cadre rather than for the defense forces pensioners.
26. This announcement is no where near requirement of desired concept of OROP, rather, it is mere, sheer, downright, utter, and absolute eyewash, but the veterans can not be deceived with such a flimsy, insubstantial, unconvincing and inadequate report.
27. There is no hesitation in saying that such a report as prepared by the Committee could have been better prepared even by a UDC or maximum an Office Superintendent or at the most by a Section Officer within one working day, where as the High Powered Committee, the constituent members of which were very senior and high ranking/position holding officers of the Govt. have taken couple of months. It has been rather, sheer wastage of finances, time and efforts.
28. It is amazing and beyond belief that this report has been accepted and approved by the Govt. as it is. This has been done without consulting the services’ officers and the IESM, which has been struggling to get OROP since eighties. Rather, it is inconceivable and unthinkable that the negative report on the subject matter that suggested rejecting the demand of OROP has been accepted and approved by that Govt. that too “that Govt. which is headed by the Congress Party”, who had promised to give OROP and the same was incorporated in the Party manifesto before the previous general elections. All countrymen in general and the defense pensioners in particular, who so ever happen to know the contents of the OROP report on its perusing, is most disheartened, discouraged, depressed, saddened, dejected, dispirited, crestfallen, dismayed, and disappointed.
29. The veterans did what they could to reach out to the powers that be, namely the Defence Minister and some renowned political leaders, but none made a firm commitment. When the pension letters were issued, they ran out of patience.
30. On 16 December 2008, the veterans began a relay fast at Jantar Mantar. When the government ignored this peaceful protest, and with all other options closed, the veterans decided to express disenchantment and decided to surrender their well earned medals.
31. Some civilian officers, especially IAS officers commented:
a. Are the pensions so inadequate that veterans are driven to economic penury?
b. Why did leaders of this movement not go to the Service Chiefs and leave it to them to obtain justice for their fraternity?
c. If their case is strong, why do they not seek justice from the courts of law?
d. Have civilian pensioners been granted OROP? If not, why should soldiers seek a special dispensation?
e. How much will it cost to implement OROP?
Adequacy or Otherwise of Pensions.
32. It would be incorrect to say that the veterans are starving. They are not. But if it not so:
a. Should they not claim their right in this age of ‘consumerism?
b. Should they and their offspring should not seek a quality of life which is denied them?
c. Do the IAS or other services do not protest for rightful demand?
d. Should they not protest against discrimination?
33. What hits the veterans is the disparity in relative amounts admitted to them among civilians as well among themselves. When a Havildar finds that a Sepoy who was working under his command is getting more money, he cannot reconcile to this fact. This is an emotive issue; inequity hurts more than inadequacy. If the government does not have enough resources, every one should be given less. Why single out past pensioners?
Approaching the Service Chiefs.
34. The veterans did approach the Service Chiefs. However, the generals and admirals have no authority in fixation of salaries and pensions. And it is not uncommon for government to ignore the most earnest suggestions of the chief of staff, rather if they ever insist, they sacked. The Chiefs of Staff Committee had recommended that there should be a service member on the Pay Commission panel, as is the practice in several countries. This was not accepted. We have it on the authority of Admiral Arun Prakash, the then Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee went back to the government with a suggested list of serving and retired general officers; this second letter was not even acknowledged.
35. With this back ground, the veterans did not consider appropriate embarrass and make the Chiefs uncomfortable who were busy fighting for the removal of anomalies in the salaries of serving soldiers.
Seeking Justice from the Courts of Law.
36. Soldiers and veterans are law abiding citizens, and have full faith in our judicial process. But our experience with the judiciary is far from satisfactory; it seems to be heavily influenced by the government in power.
37. Further, due to their old age, poor health, left over responsibilities and financial constraints; having spread in far flung areas and some in most remote areas in the country, it is not possible for the debarred old disciplined defense pensioners to organize large rallies or go to the streets to paralyze the Govt./administration or individually go to courts to seek justice as is done by other civilian forces of the country, especially the politicians. They are unable to approach any of the concerned authorities or Courts of Law unitedly to seek justice due to their aforesaid inabilities and constrains.
38. In view of the foregoing, the govt. must not take undue advantage of their inabilities, rather, must be more considerate to accept OROP for all the defense pensioners irrespective of their date of retirement and the ranks they held before their retirement.
39. For instance, for reasons not relevant to this paper, the notional pay scale granted to Maj. Generals by the Fifth Pay Commission was Rs 18,400-22,400/-. The pay of Brigadier (inclusive of rank pay, which was defined as basic pay for all purposes) was 19,100-20,450/-. Now, for the general officers in service this did not matter as they were promoted from Brigs and hence started at a higher point on the scale and drew pension at appropriate scales. But in respect of past pensioners, the government decreed that pre-1996 retirees would be granted pensions at the lowest level of the pay scale. Thus, the pension of Maj.-Gen. was lower than that of Brig. Later, on having projected the case, it was made equal.
Do civilian pensioners receive OROP?
Those civilians who are in receipt of “fixed salaries” are granted OROP. But a majority of civilian pensioners do not get this benefit. However, there is a striking difference in their ages of retirement. While all civilians retire at 60, soldiers begin to be separated at an age as young as 35, to maintain a youthful age profile. Apart from this, there are several other conditions of service like hazard, risk, stringent medical standards and strict disciplinary code which distinguish the soldiers, service calling for an exclusive pension structure. This has been elaborated in detail in the later part of this paper.
40. It is to note that until the third pay commission the pensions of the soldiers were based on rank and the length of service and not linked with the pay drawn at the time of retirement. The Fourth Pay Commission (1983-86) disturbed this time tested format, and the veterans have been protesting ever since then.
The cost of granting OROP.
41. We do not have access to official statistics, but it is informally learnt that OROP will entail an additional expenditure of Rs. 2,200/- crores per annum. This will diminish with each passing year as pre-2006 pensioners can only decrease in number. Fresh retirees will be given the revised pensions anyway.
PENSION IS NOT THE ROOT CAUSE OF THIS AGITATION OF THE DEFENSE PENSIONERS.
42. Of course, the OROP is the overt and manifest cause of the veterans’ stir but in addition to this, there is widespread anger against the manner in which we soldiers are being treated, both in service and after retirement by civil servants. The so-called civilian control over the military has become so overbearing that it is oppressive, tyrannical, malicious and spiteful to work in South Block. For every little thing, the generals need ‘IAS officers’ approval’ which takes the same time as the court case cited above.
WHY ONE RANK ONE PENSION (OROP) OF DEFENSE SERVICES PENSIONERS ALONE IS REQUIRED?
43. The IAS officers often ask “why defense services pensioners alone ask for OROP. Except the IAS officers, so called High Powered Committee and the Govt., it is well known to all the countrymen of the nation that the service conditions of the defense forces personnel are highly:
a. Precarious.
b. Rough.
c. Tough.
d. Hard.
e. Grueling.
f. Arduous.
g. Ruthless.
h. Strenuous.
i. Severe.
j. Brutal.
k. Vigorous.
l. Rigorous.
m. Exhausting.
n. Backbreaking.
o. Troublesome.
p. Horrifying.
q. Scary.
r. Petrifying.
s. Risky.
t. Terrifying.
u. Frightening.
v. Harsh.
w. Perilous.
x. Death-defying.
y. Dangerous.
z. Hard-hitting.
aa. Insecure.
bb. Hazardous.
cc. Treacherous.
dd. Terrorizing.
ee. Vulnerable.
ff. Unsafe.
44. Such service conditions are incomparable, unrivaled, unparalleled, and unmatched with services of the IAS officers or any of the other services of the country.
45. In addition; a wide disparity exists between civil services officers and defense services officers and PBOR, which always have been persisting and expected to be so. Just to highlight, a few of them are enumerated as under:
a. All the defense services personnel retire much before than what the civil services employees.
b. The promotions in defense services are too meager in comparison to civil services employees.
c. The commissioned officers get only three chances to get selection grade promotion of a rank during their entire service, where as all civilian officers keep getting such chances for promotion till they retire from service.
d. The transfers/postings for the defense services personnel are very frequent, where as the transfers/postings for civilian are most rare.
e. The married accommodation for defense services personnel is never adequate/100%; where as all civil servants are authorised 100% married accommodation.
f. The families and children of services personnel always keep suffering during their entire service and even after their retirement since the deficiencies and responsibilities they had in service keep increasing, rather, worsening after there retirement.
46. There are unaccounted and numerous such disparities between the defense services and civil services employees, which may possible to enumerate them here.
MEANINGLESS, MOCKING, SARDONIC, SUPERCILIOUS DEPRESSING, DISHEARTENING, DISAPPOINTING AND INTIMIDATING DECISION OF THE GOVT. PERTAINING TO THE OROP.
47. It is ridiculous to note that the Govt. intentionally does want to understand/comprehend as to what the OROP is. Hence, it keeps befooling the defense personnel and public by announcing that the OROP is accepted by it, where as it nowhere near the truth.
48. The Finance Minister in his budget speech of 2009 announced that the Govt. has accepted and approved the OROP. The Defense Minister too announced in the public that OROP benefits are approved for commissioned officers as well as for PBOR, which too is far from the truth.
49. Astonishingly, the PM clarifies on one-rank-one-pension for armed forces in New Delhi, on March 5 ,a day after being accused of parliamentary impropriety by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader L.K. Advani, saying that a committee under the cabinet secretary has not recommended one-rank-one-pension scheme for defence personnel.
50. The Prime Minister stated that the commitment he made in his last year's Independence Day speech and Finance Minister's (Pranab Mukherjee) promise in his budget speech of July 6, 2009 have not been honoured is not correct. This he said in spite of the fact that even 1o% of the concept of OROP has been approved or accepted or implemented.
51. The debarred defense forces pensioners wish to ask the present Govt. and the concerned authorities, who took such an awful, appalling, shocking, evil, wicked, depraved, brutal, and as to why the abysmal action of dividing the defense pensioners in such a deceitful, cunning, devious and deceitful manner has been taken, as a result of which a large number of them have been debarred from the benefit of OROP. Can any one of them has any legitimate answer of the following questions in support of their misdeed, transgression and misdemeanor:
a. Are the remaining debarred defense pensioners for whom benefit of One Rank One Pension has not been approved are not the ex-defense personnel?
b. Did they not serve the nation; may they be officers or PBOR of pre-1997 period and the officers of pre or post 1997 period?
c. Did all the debarred defense pensioners when in service of their beloved motherland not fight and many of them not give their lives while fighting against the external and internal enemies, whose families and children have suffered and are still suffering till date?
d. Could the defense forces ever fight the wars/battles against the external and internal enemies without the officers or can it be ever possible in future?
e. Have the defense pensioners who have been debarred from the benefit of OROP not served the nation like other soldiers for whom the concept of OROP has been approved?
f. Were the deprived defense pensioners not sincere, honest, loyal, faithful, obedient, dutiful, submissive, docile, tractable, and disciplined soldiers while they were in service of their beloved country?
g. Did the deprived defense pensioners not give their prime youth and some of them their lives in service of the nation while they were in service?
h. Are the debarred pensioners are not the ex-service men?
FACTS RELATED TO APPLICATION OF PRO RATA OF 33 YEARS FOR THE CENTRAL GOVT. PENSIONERS WHO RETIRED BEFORE JAN 2006, WHERE AS 6TH CPC IN ITS FINAL REPORT HAS COMPLETELY REMOVED THIS CLAUSE.
52. The main and common grievance and discrimination among all the pensioners is that of applying pro rata of 33 years for fixation of pension of pre-2006 pensioners including defense pensioners, while this clause has been completely removed by the 6th CPC to giving full pension to all the retired employees.
53. To elaborate the matter, the 6th CPC report with beneficial amendments is applicable w.e.f. 01 Jan 2006. “The full pension will be granted 50% of last pay drawn of the pay band of the post plus grade pay after rendering 20 years of service. The pension of all pre 2006 pensioners is to be re-fixed accordingly.
54. As mentioned above, the earlier clause for grant of full pension after 33 years of service is categorically and unconditionally removed by the 6th CPC. The full pension now is permissible after 20 years of service. The benefit of full pension after 20 years therefore has to be applicable to all the past, present and future pensioners, irrespective of their dates of retirement.
55. Ministry of Personnel, PG & P, Deptt of Pension and Pensioner’s welfare, vide para 4.2 of Memorandum F No.38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated 2nd September 2008, issued instructions for the implementation of the Government‘s decision for fixation of revised pension of pre-2006 pensioners/family pensioners. They have again repeated in its para “the Revised Pension in no case shall be lower than 50 % of the minimum of the pay in pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired.” Here also, the clause of 33 years was omitted in view of the fact that it stands removed by the 6th CPC.
56. Also, the Finance Ministry’s has made it amply clearly, visibly and undoubtedly emphasized that the full pension will be 50% of the last pay drawn plus grade pay, without any mention of 33 years requirement for full pension’. Thus, in all the cases of past, present, future including the existing pensioners of pre 2006 period; it should be and must be full pension which is 50% of the minimum pay of the pay-band of the post plus its grade pay without considering/implementing the clause of pro rata of 33 years or any cut of date. As such, the pension fixation authorities have to ascertain the old pay scale and corresponding pay of the pensioners to re-fix/revise their pension in the corresponding revised pay band and grade pay. Based on it, one’s pension is to be re-fixed accordingly.
57. Strangely, bizarrely, outlandishly and eccentrically, the concept of pro rata of 33 years, even if it stands removed by 6th CPC, it was later added in the above office memorandum No: 38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated 2.9.2008, mentioning that the Government Servants who retired before 1.1.2006 after completion of 33 years of qualifying service will be eligible for full pension; with qualifying service of less than 33 years will continue to be proportionate to the full pension based on their actual qualifying service.
58. It may be noted that on implementation of 6th CPC, which has explicitly removed the pro rata of 33 years, it’s application must not have anything to do in any case for fixation of pension of the existing pensioners. Rather, in all the cases, the pension has to be fixed based on 2o years of service rendered as per 6th CPC. However, if pension is granted in the cases where service rendered is less than 20 years, in such cases, the pro rata of 20 years is to be applied since the condition of grant of full pension is 20 years.
59. It is very agonizing, poignant and depressing to point out that the DP&T have still incorporated the clause of pro rata of 33 years for fixation of pension in the cases of the existing pre-2006 pensioners which is utterly, and absolutely discriminatory, biased, prejudiced, bigoted and inequitable. They seem to have done it without obtaining clarification from the 6th CPC or Cabinet or Central Govt. Even if they have obtained approval of any of them, they could have done it by misleading, in disingenuous manners, deceptively and deceivingly.
60. The DP&T (P&PW have retained the clause of pro rata of 33 years, quoting; ‘it is as per pension regulations of 1972’.
61. It is to be noted that the pension regulations of 1972 were framed afresh during the year to grant pension. There were number of clauses in these regulations. It may be noted that most of the clauses have undergone changes since thereafter.
62. It is clear that the pension is admissible to the eligible employees in accordance with the pension regulations of 1972. The pension regulations of 1972 lays down as to: How much should be the pension, how it is to be calculated, when it is to be revised, how much and when it is to be revised, after how long one should be entitled, how it is to be calculated, how it is re-fixed e.t.c. is being changed periodically since 1972. Nevertheless it has always been uniformly revised category/class-wise, but class/category was never divided to give benefit to some and deny the others. Rather, it has always been done without any discrimination.
63. It is emphasized that the scheme of liberalisation is not and must not be for new retirees alone, rather it is equally applicable to the pre 2006 pensioners as well as from 2006 onward as is the rest of the CPC report is applicable.
64. The Pension has correlation to average emoluments and length of qualifying service. Hence it is reiterated that the liberalisation is not meant and must not be meant merely for the retirees after a specific date; in fact, it has to be and must be uniformly applicable to all the pensioners, failing which it will be utterly and absolutely disregard, disrespect, indifference, derision, condescension, contempt, and disdain of Article 14 as well as that of judgements of the Apex court and other courts.
65. It is therefore stressed and impressed upon that the case of applying the pro rata of 33 year for fixation of pension for pre 2006 pensioners, will be highly unprincipled, immoral, unscrupulous, dishonorable unethical, prejudiced, inequitable and discriminatory act of the concerned authorities.
66. Hence, in view of the fact that 6th CPC has removed the period of 33 years service for giving full pension and now full pension is to be given after 20 years of service; retaining the pro rata of 33 years for pre 2006 pension is highly illogical and discriminatory, hence, it must be removed immediately.
67. The govt. and concerned authorities, are well aware that the Constitutional Bench of Honorable Supreme Court of India gave decision in the case of D S Nakra and others Verses Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 305 . One of the questions posed in the case was whether a class of Pensioners could be divided for the purpose of entitlement and payment of pension into those who retired by certain date and those who retired thereafter. The Constitution Bench held that such division being both arbitrary and unprincipled; the classification did not stand the test of Article 14. The argument that the cut off date had to be fixed in view of the limited financial resources available to cover up additional expenses to be incurred on account of revision of pay scale was not accepted by the Constitution Bench of the honorable Supreme Court.
68. The above Judgement pronounced by a Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court is available at http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.aspx for the benefit of all who want to read it.
69. 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. This was applicable to all the present and future pensioners. The case was filed by one retired civil officer (subject to Central Civil Pension Rules 1972) and one retired defense officer (subject to Army Pension Regulations) and the third petitioner was a Registered Society. Only the following extracts of this judgment will clarify the of the Apex court, which is the position:
70. “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.”
a. Further “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 pensioners governed by 1972 Rules. The date of retirement is irrelevant. But the revised scheme would be operative for all from the date mentioned in the scheme and would bring under its umbrella all existing pensioners and those who retired/retire subsequent to that date. In case of pensioners who retired prior to the specified date, their pension would be computed afresh”
b. The above part pertains to clearly explains that while approving OROP, the defense pensioners of officers’ ranks and defense personnel below officers ranks must not be differentiated. It also clarifies that the pensioners must not be divided in various classes on the ground that some retired earlier and some retired later for giving the benefit of OROP to some and debar others as well as adopting pro rata of 33 yeas for some and giving full pension in 20 years to others.
71. It is abundantly clear from the above extracts that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, upholding the Article 14 of the constitution of India has already objected to the division of pensioners and accepted the principle of equality and this is the Apex court of the country which enjoys the status of the LAW OF THE LAND.
72. The Apex court judgements apply exactly to the case of all the debarred defense pensioners for approving One Rank One Pension for them irrespective of their date of retirement and rank they held before their retirement. If the govt. still does not reconsider their decision of approving the concept of OROP for all the defense pensioners, it will be the contempt of court orders as well as disregard and disrespect to Article 14 of the constitution of India.
73. Astonishingly, the Govt. of India while approving the concept of One Rank One Pension, have completely ignored, unobserved, disregarded, overlooked and by passed the contents of Article 14 of the constitution of the country as well as judgements of the Apex court and various other courts of the country.
74. Nevertheless, it is most disappointing to note that while considering One Rank One Pension benefit, a large number of the defense pensioners “personnel below officers ranks” and all the defense pensioners of the officer’ ranks have been debarred/left out of this legitimate benefit and approved in case of negligible number of them giving negligible benefit. It is regretted that the defense pensioners have been divided in number of classes by the govt. just to debar a large number of them from the concept of One Rank One Pension benefit. From the action of dividing the defense pensioners in such a manner, it can be clearly seen that the govt. has totally violated, disregarded, ignored, unobserved, overlooked and by-passed the contents of the Article 14 of the constitution of the country.
75. The most unexpected and undesired action of dividing the defense pensioners, the Govt. has cheated, disenchanted, let down, embittered and disillusioned them. The govt. and the concerned authorities have done a most heinous, monstrous, atrocious, odious, shocking, wicked and scandalous act of debarring the old soldiers from meeting their long awaited demand of OROP. It was never expected and imagined that even the present govt. could ever do such a great injustice to the defense pensioners.
76. It is regretted with extreme pain, distress and anguish to point out that by dividing the defense pensioners in number of classes in such a deceitful manner, the govt. has treated the left out defense pensioners from the legitimate preview of One Rank One Pension as if the debarred defense pensioners have been disloyal, or discarded, or undisciplined, or traitors, or conspirators, or collaborators, or defectors, or deserters, or spies, or double agents, or turncoats. If it is not so, no govt. could ever think of meting such a shabby, scruffy, dilapidated, grungy, disgraceful, shameful, shocking, outrageous, scandalous, dishonorable, discreditable, reprehensible, appalling, biased, prejudiced, unfair, bigoted, inequitable and discriminatory treatment to any of the defense pensioners.
77. It seem that the authorities think that all the debarred officers and some PBOR are from the royal families like Maharaja Bhawani Singh who did not take even his pay except Rupee one as his salary. Hence, they need not get the benefit of OROP. OR, they think that the debarred officers and PBOR pensioners are multi millionaires/billionaires like politicians who keep spending in crores for fighting elections, hence all the defense pensioners are not required to get the benefit of OROP.
78. Surprisingly, all the MPs and MLAs, irrespective of any amount of wealth they possess/amass from any legitimate or illegitimate sources, still they get full pension for each of their tenures for any amount of period they remain MPS, where as the defense pensioners are denied full pension/OROP for the serving the nation. It is because of the fact that they are the law makers and they make such laws for their personal benefit what those suit them the best.
79. It is emphatically and vigorously pointed out that such an action of dividing the defense pensioners and debarring a large number of the existing pensioners is that of denial of equal benefit for fixation of pension for all the defense pensioners including defense officers’ pensioners. Such a division of defense pensioners is the explicit case of arbitrary introduction of words of limitation as per Article 14. There is nothing immutable and incontrovertible about the choosing of an event as an eligibility criterion subsequent to limit a specified date that too with limited benefit for few of them. As the event is certain but its occurrence may have happened to be at a different point of time, it is considered wholly irrelevant and arbitrary, having an undesirable effect of dividing a homogeneous class of defense pensioners and creating discrimination among them, which should be easily severed and set aside by any courts of the country.
80. The present Govt. is fully aware of the contents of Article 14. Yet, it seems that the govt. by dividing the defense pensioners has intentionally and deliberately violated and disregarded the spirit of Article 14 as it has completely ignored, unobserved, overlooked and by passed its contents. It is therefore just and proper that the words introducing the arbitrary, capricious illogical and whimsical circumstances which are vulnerable as denying equality be severed and struck down by the govt. with immediate effect.
81. It is strongly felt that if the govt. still justify their action of dividing the defense pensioners and debarring a large number of them from getting full benefit of OROP, in that case, it is suggested with anguish that all the debarred defense pensioners who are considered a fit case for their disqualification and debarring then from giving the benefit of One Rank One Pension; it is better “all of them be shot dead or hanged, so that none of them are required to be paid any amount of their pension”, rather than wounding and insulting them in such a heinous and atrocious manner.
82. As a result of the most undesired action of dividing the defense pensioners, they feel to have been cheated, disenchanted, let down, embittered and disillusioned by the govt. It was never expected and imagined that the present govt. could do such a great injustice to them and it would approve the concept of One Rank One Pension benefit just for a few of the defense pensioners and a large number of them would be excluded and debarred from this long awaited legitimate demand. The govt. and the concerned authorities therefore have done a most heinous, monstrous, atrocious, odious, shocking, wicked and scandalous act of debarring the old soldiers from getting their long awaited due.
83. It is regretted with extreme pain, distress and anguish to point out that by dividing the defense pensioners in number of classes in such a deceitful manner, the govt. seem to have treated the left out defense pensioners from the approved preview of One Rank One Pension as if the debarred defense pensioners have been disloyal, or discarded, or undisciplined, or traitors, or conspirators, or collaborators, or defectors, or deserters, or spies, or double agents, or turncoats. If it is not so, no govt. could ever think of meting such a shabby, scruffy, dilapidated, grungy, disgraceful, shameful, shocking, outrageous, scandalous, dishonorable, discreditable, reprehensible, appalling, biased, prejudiced, unfair, bigoted, inequitable and discriminatory treatment to any of the defense pensioners.
84. The UPA Govt. must fulfill their promise, assurance and pledge since it was incorporated in their manifesto/agenda of providing OROP in totality for all the past, present and future defense personnel/pensioners without dividing them in various classes as has been presently done.
85. It is abundantly clear from the above extracts that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, upholding the Article 14 of the constitution of India has already objected to the division of It pensioners and accepted the principle of equality and this is the Apex court of the country which enjoys the status of the LAW OF THE LAND.
86. The Apex court judgements apply exactly to the case of all the debarred defense pensioners for approving One Rank One Pension for them irrespective of their date of retirement and rank they held before their retirement. If the govt. still does not reconsider their decision of approving the concept of OROP for all the defense pensioners, it will be the contempt of court orders as well as disregard and disrespect to Article 14 of the constitution of India.
87. Deprival of justified OROP for the entire class of defense pensioners including retired officers has created gloom and obscurity as well as a great resentment, antipathy and umbrage amongst the pre-2006 defense retirees as well as serving defense personnel.
88. The Govt. is fully aware that due to their old age, poor health, left over responsibilities and financial constraints; having spread in far flung areas and some in most remote areas in the country, it is not possible for the debarred old disciplined defense and civil pensioners to organize large rallies or go to streets to paralyze the Govt./administration or individually go to courts to seek justice do what other civilian forces of the country, especially the politicians can do,. They are unable to approach any of the concerned authorities or Courts of Law unitedly to seek justice due to their aforesaid inabilities and constrains. The govt. therefore must not take undue advantage of their inabilities, rather, must be more considerate to accept OROP for all the defense pensioners irrespective of their date of retirement and the ranks they held before their retirement as well as remove the clause of pro rata of 33 years for re-fixing their pension, as this clause is completely removed by the 6th CPC for all the post 2005 retirees.
89. It is mandatory for the Govt. to Adhere, regard, observe, respect and honor Article 14 of the constitution of India and number of Apex court judgements on the subject, as well as considering the nature of services the defense pensioners rendered in extreme unfavorable climatic conditions, and terrains against external and internal enemies of the nation for the security and safety of the country and the countrymen. As such, it becomes, necessary, unavoidable, obligatory, binding and compulsory for the govt. to approve One Rank One Pension for all of them without any discrimination, and prejudice.
90. The govt. and the concerned authorities therefore must look into this matter without any prejudice, narrow-mindedness, discrimination and insularity to initiate immediate action and issue amendment to sanction One Rank One Pension for all the defense pensioners without any disparity of ranks. It is equally essential to remove the unwarranted, gratuitous, uncalled-for, unjustifiable and unsubstantiated pro rata clause of 33 years for the pre 2006 pensioners.
91. In view of the facts, particulars, details, specifics, documentary evidence and veracity explained above, all the defense pensioners, most industriously, earnestly, vigorously, sincerely and honestly request and appeal to benign self of the President of India, Vice President, Speaker of the Lok Sabha, Prime Minister, all the Ministers of the Govt., MPs of the country and concerned authorities to please examine, and review the case to approve the principle/concept of One Rank One Pension in its totality for all the defense forces pensioners without attaching any strings of dates of retirement or ranks they wore before their retirement.
92. The authorities are further requested to remove the clause of pro rata of 33 years for all the pre-2006 pensioners for fixation of their revised pension.
93. The most urgent action in the matter is solicited please.
Yours Sincerely,
Lt. Col. (Retd.) K L Jaspal,
H. No. 28, Sector 21-B, Faridabad, Haryana. Pin-121001.
Mobile Phone No. 09471889885
Email address: krishanlaljaspal@yahoo.co.in
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment