From:
Lt. Col. (Retd.) K L Jaspal, H. No. 28, Sector 21-B, Faridabad, Haryana. Pin-121001.
Email address: krishanlaljaspal@yahoo.co.in
SUBJECT: DIVIDING THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT PENSIONERS AND CREATING DISCRIMINATION AMOUNG THEM BY INCARPORATITING PRO RATA OF 33YEARS FOR CALCULATING PENSION IN CASE OF PRE-2006 PENSIONERS.
PROLOGUE.
1. In accordance with the contents of Article 14, this piece of writing 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. Efforts are made to explain that 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 forbids the Govt. from doing so. 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.
2. 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 class 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.
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.
5. 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 removed by the 6th CPC to giving full pension to all the retired employees.
6. 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 fixed except of re-induction of pro rata of 33 years.
7. 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. Notwithstanding, the Govt. has re-introduced the pro rata of 33 years to re-fix the pension just for pre 2006 pensioners only. The govt. therefore has divided the civilian central govt. pensioner in two categories: Firstly, present pensioners i.e. post 2006 pensioners, and secondly, pre-2006 pensioners.
8. In accordance with the contents of Article 14 of the constitution of India, the govt. must not have divided nor done any thing which is that of arbitrary introduction of words of limitation. As per the Article, there is nothing immutable and incontrovertible about the choosing of an event as an eligibility criterion subsequent to a specified date. If the event is certain but its occurrence happened to be at a different point of time, it is considered wholly irrelevant and arbitrarily, having an undesirable effect of dividing a homogeneous class and introducing discrimination, which can be easily severed and set aside by any court of the country. It is therefore just and proper that the words introducing the arbitrary fortuitous circumstances which are vulnerable as denying equality be severed and struck down.
9. 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.
10. 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 it 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. The DP&T has intentionally overlooked and ignored the contents of 6th CPC, and resolution of the Govt., the contents of Article 14 of the constitution and various judgements of the Apex court and other courts of the country which are clear and self explanatory, descriptive, instructive, illuminating and expounding.
17. 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.
18. The DP&T (P&PW have retained the clause of pro rata of 33 years, quoting; ‘it is as per pension regulations of 1972’. 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 changed since thereafter.
19. 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.
20. However, if the Govt. ever divided the category or class of employees for whatever reasons but happened to be against the interest of some pensioners, the courts of the land always struck down such divisions. 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 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.
21. Just to apprise the govt. and concerned authorities, it is pertinent to highlight the fact 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 a 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.
22. In this regard it is worth to refer to the rulings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which enjoy the status of LAW OF THE LAND. 6th Pay Commission it self has referred to the famous judgment in the case of D.S. Nakra Vs Union of India (AIR 1983, SC 130) vide Para 5.1.3 of its report.
23. This Judgment pronounced by a Constitution Bench of Supreme Court is available at http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.aspx for the benefit of all who want to read it.
24. The above 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 the Liberalized Pension Scheme, the provisions were changed to calculate the pension based on the average salary of last 10 months.
25. The case in the above matter 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 position:
a. Proceeding further on the matter, “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.”
b. “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 pensioner 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 i.e. 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”
26. Another recent Judgment pronounced by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 9th September 2008 is available at http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.aspx for the information of authorities and others. This case was originally filed by some Retired Major Generals of the Army with regard to fixation of their pension after implementation of 5th Pay Commission. Government of India had filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the judgment of Punjab High Court, (Civil Appeal No. 5566 of 2008, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12357 of 2006 Union of India vs. SPS Vains (Retd.) and others). In this case Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed as under:
“We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal and modify the order of the High Court by directing that the pay of all pensioners in the rank of Major General and its equivalent rank in the two other wings of the Defence Services be notionally fixed at the rate given to similar officers of the same rank after the revision of pay scales with effect from 1.1.1996, and, thereafter, to compute their pensionary benefits on such basis”.
27. The above cases are equally relevant not to applying the pro rata of 33 years for pre-2006 defense pensioners since this clause stands removed by the 6th CPC for all the Pensioners from 2006 onward.
28. It is abundantly clear from the above extracts that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which enjoys the status of the LAW OF THE LAND, has already accepted the principle of equality.
29. From the foregoing, it is evidently clear that by dividing the pensioners, in pre 2006 and post 2006 categories, the Govt has completely, totally, entirely, fully, utterly, and absolutely neglected the principal of equality and the contents of Article 14 and even overlooked, ignored and disregarded the orders of Apex Court of the country and various other courts delivered their judgments in adopting the principal of equality in the past.
30. Deprival of due and that too justified due of Revised Pension of full pension after 20 years in accordance with 6th CPC report uniformly for all pensioners has created gloom and obscurity as well as a great resentment, antipathy and umbrage amongst all the pre-2006 retirees.
31. It may not be possible for the effected pensioners to approach Courts of Law to seek justice, due to their old age, left over responsibility and financial constraints. Also it is due to the fact that all of them are spread in far flung areas in the country and in their. The govt. and the concerned authorities therefore must look into the matter without any prejudice, narrow-mindedness, discrimination and insularity to initiate immediate action and issue amendment to remove the unwarranted, gratuitous, uncalled-for, unjustifiable and unsubstantiated introduction of clause of pro rata clause of 33 years which has been incorporated intentionally or un-intestinally.
32. More than enough data, particulars, details, specifics, documentary evidence and veracity explained above, all the pensioners, most industriously, earnestly, vigorously, sincerely and honestly request and appeal to the 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 remove the clause of pro rata of 33 years for all the pre-2006 pensioners for fixation of their revised pension.
33. The most urgent action in the matter is solicited please.
Yours Sincerely,
Lt. Col. (retd). K L Jaspal.
Telephone number-01292438828.
Email address: krishanlaljaspal@yahoo.co.in
Monday, August 24, 2009
Why One Rank One Pension
(A) ADDITIONAL POINT ON OROP PROPOSED.
In addition to the points considered by the High Powered Committee; another point proposed is that if the OROP is not be fixed on the basis of maximum of the pay band + grade pay of the rank + MSP. Instead, it may be fixed considering the number of years of service every pensioner rendered before his retirement + additional numbers of service for each rank as is being added presently; on the similar basis of 50% of pay of the pay band after rendering that length of service + grade pay of the rank + MSP. It is a justified suggestion and the Govt. must accept it without any reservation or hesitation.
K L Jaspal.
krishanlaljaspal@yahoo.co.in
Mob: 09471889885.
(B) WHY ONE RANK ONE PENSION (OROP) OF DEFENSE SERVICES PENSIONERS?
(1). A very high powered 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. It is very agonizing that the Committee did not put in 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. In fact, even otherwise, how could it have done justice to the requirement of OROP when none of the members of the Committee has any physical or practical experience or knowledge of service conditions of armed forces which warrant special considerations to afford them attractive and better pay and allowances during the service and pension after their retirement? Also, the defense forces pensioners did not expect that the 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. Also, none of them will ever like their children/wards to join the Armed Forces even ever in future.
(2). Further, such a Committee must have been large enough and would have had some of the members of high ranking serving as well as retired pensioners who 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 its genuineness and done justice with the same. Surprisingly, The Committee did not even care to consult any of the members of National Ex-servicemen Association, which is the IESM on date, whose Chairman is Lt Gen (Retd.) Raj Kadyan, PVSM, AVSM, VSM. It is also astonishing and astounding that this report has been accepted and even approved by the Govt. as it is without consulting any one from the armed forces or the IESM, which has been struggling to get OROP since decades.
(3). The manner and approach the report of ONE RANK ONE PENSION (OROP) prepared by the very high powered Committee was never expected to be formulated as asked for. 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, and the veterans can not be deceived with such a redundant and superfluous report.
(4). 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.
(5). 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 as well; rather this has always been the logic, argument and thinking of the concerned IAS officer in position. Hence, the committee proposed not to propose OROP to the defense pensioners, especially the retired commissioned Officers. Truly speaking, from the arguments put forth by the committee, it seems that they were considering the OROP for their own self cadre rather than for the defense forces pensioners.
(6). 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 more than two months. It has been rather, sheer wastage of time and efforts.
(7). Considering the above facts, how one can expect that the Committee could have done justice to the OROP for the defense forces pensioners.
(8). It is amazing and beyond belief that this report has been accepted and even approved by the Govt. as it is 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”, that had promised to give OROP and the same was incorporated in the Party manifesto before the previous general elections. Every one who so ever happens to know the contents of the OROP report on its perusing is most disheartened, discouraged, depressed, saddened, dejected, dispirited, crestfallen, dismayed, and disappointed.
(9). This announcement is no where near requirement of desired 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.
(10). Except the so called High Powered Committee and the Govt., it is well known to countrymen of the nation that the service conditions of the defense forces personnel are highly precarious, rough, tough, hard, grueling, arduous, ruthless, strenuous, severe, brutal, vigorous, rigorous, exhausting, backbreaking, troublesome, horrifying, scary, petrifying, risky, terrifying, frightening, harsh, perilous, death-defying, dangerous, hard-hitting, insecure, hazardous, treacherous, terrorizing, and unsafe. Such service conditions are incomparable, unrivaled, unparalleled, and unmatched with any of the services of the country.
(11). In addition to unfavourable service conditions of defense personnel; a wide disparity exists between civil services officers and defense services officers, which always have been persisting. Just to highlight a few of them, all the defense services personnel retire much before what the civil services employees retire. The promotions in defense services are too meager in comparison to civil services employees. 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. The transfers/postings for the defense services personnel are very frequent, where as the transfers/postings for civilian are most rare. The married accommodation for defense services personnel is never adequate/100%; where as all civil servants are authorised 100% married accommodation. 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. There are unaccounted and numerous such disparities between the defense services and civil services employees, which may possible to enumerate them here.
(12). Under the aforesaid service conditions and with such disparities, how many parents, especially the ministers, politicians and IAS officers who are in the helm of affairs would have ever sent or like to send their children, wards and relatives to join defense forces? It is assured there is none.
(13). Nevertheless, no nation can survive without the services of defense forces to safeguard its national borders and even to maintain internal security, especially under the present scenario. It is rather more imperative and essential in the present scenario, when our country is surrounded by the enemy countries. Some of them have been producing the infiltrators and terrorists, who have been playing havoc to disturb the peace and harmony of our countrymen as well as trying to destabilize our economy by smuggling and various other means.
(14). The Govt. seems to have forgotten the Kargil war, number of previous wars and recent havoc of Bombay created by the terrorists, when property worth billions was destroyed and a large number of valuable lives were lost. The Govt. seems to have totally forgotten all these.
(15). Further, the Prime Minister on behalf of the Govt. and whole nation pays homage to the martyrs by laying writhe at the India Gate to the sacrificial victims and war heroes and during any other contingencies, where all ranks of defense services have lost their lives for the nation and its nationals. But it seems; the Govt. does it just to show off and eyewash, thereby befooling the people and defense forces personnel. If it so, it is very sad on the part of the Govt.
(16). What are the places where forces are not deployed? They are deployed, not against the foreign enemies alone, but they are utilized against the enemies within the country, counter insurgencies, against militants, terrorists and remain stand-to for 24 hours to counter any eventualities, emergencies and emergencies. Even during the natural calamities like floods, fires and situations like tsunamis, it is the services of defense personnel which are called for to bring the things to normalcy. Even, during normal conditions, it is the defense forces personnel who remain stand-to for 24 hours to counter any eventualities throughout the year.
(17). Do the authorities not know that the defense forces personnel never remain in any station for more than two years? Some of the stations, though these may be peace areas, but there is no sufficient married accommodation and some places no or little required educational facilities. As a result, their families remain forced separated and their children and old parents/dependents keep suffering throughout their service.
(18). The above disparities, especially the service conditions are that of permanent nature which can never be removed. However, just to compensate at least to some extent, the Govt. must give better pay & allowances as well as pension to defense officers and PBOR commensurately to their counterparts under the prevailing service conditions and disparities.
(19). Accordingly, with the view to get some essentially required and genuine benefits, the OROP has been a persistent and relentless demand of defense services pensioner since decades. Yet, it is a very sad to say that the demand of OROP has been ruthlessly ignored and disregarded by the High Powered Committed constituted by the Govt., based on which the same is then rejected by the Govt.
(20). The entire nation knows of the defense forces personnel problems. It is due to these adverse service conditions and problems, the real talents do not come forward to join the defense services. Also, a large number of officers leave the forces to join private service. As a result of it, the present huge deficiency of defense services officers, which is prevailing since decades, is never likely to be made up unless the Govt. takes up necessary steps to give the soldiers better and attractive incentives in the form of pay, allowances, perks, pension and other benefits as and when suggested from time to time during their service as well as after retirement.
(21). Also, the entire nation knows and recognize the work and services of defense forces, but it is beyond anyone’s comprehension that why our own Govt does not pay any heed to the problems and genuine requirements of the defense services. It is really very strange.
(22). It is felt that anyone not realizing the problems and requirements of the defense forces, he is definitely not the well-wisher of the defense forces personnel; rather, he is the enemy of the defense forces. In fact such people are not the enemies of the defense forces personnel alone, but they are the enemies of the whole nation/country, who are trying to demoralize the forces to destabilize the nation. Is there any one from such persons’ generations, who would have ever thought of joining neither the defense forces nor they will ever ask their children to do so. Such persons presumably could have amassed unaccountable wealth, the means for which could be best known to them.
(23). Notwithstanding, in spite of the such a negative attitude of the Govt. and concerned authorities towards defense forces, the all ranks of defense forces still pray to the Almighty to give all of them some wisdom and shower best wishes over them.
(24). Nevertheless, the demand of the OROP will never be left here-itself come what may. This has to be followed with more vociferous protests by all the ex-servicemen organisations as well as Services Chiefs till the desired genuine results are achieved, thus to demand a re-look at the issue from the Govt. of UPA, headed by the Congress party which had included in its manifesto that of the previous as well 2004 polls.
K L Jaspal.
krishanlaljaspal@yahoo.co.in
Mob: 09471889885
In addition to the points considered by the High Powered Committee; another point proposed is that if the OROP is not be fixed on the basis of maximum of the pay band + grade pay of the rank + MSP. Instead, it may be fixed considering the number of years of service every pensioner rendered before his retirement + additional numbers of service for each rank as is being added presently; on the similar basis of 50% of pay of the pay band after rendering that length of service + grade pay of the rank + MSP. It is a justified suggestion and the Govt. must accept it without any reservation or hesitation.
K L Jaspal.
krishanlaljaspal@yahoo.co.in
Mob: 09471889885.
(B) WHY ONE RANK ONE PENSION (OROP) OF DEFENSE SERVICES PENSIONERS?
(1). A very high powered 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. It is very agonizing that the Committee did not put in 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. In fact, even otherwise, how could it have done justice to the requirement of OROP when none of the members of the Committee has any physical or practical experience or knowledge of service conditions of armed forces which warrant special considerations to afford them attractive and better pay and allowances during the service and pension after their retirement? Also, the defense forces pensioners did not expect that the 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. Also, none of them will ever like their children/wards to join the Armed Forces even ever in future.
(2). Further, such a Committee must have been large enough and would have had some of the members of high ranking serving as well as retired pensioners who 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 its genuineness and done justice with the same. Surprisingly, The Committee did not even care to consult any of the members of National Ex-servicemen Association, which is the IESM on date, whose Chairman is Lt Gen (Retd.) Raj Kadyan, PVSM, AVSM, VSM. It is also astonishing and astounding that this report has been accepted and even approved by the Govt. as it is without consulting any one from the armed forces or the IESM, which has been struggling to get OROP since decades.
(3). The manner and approach the report of ONE RANK ONE PENSION (OROP) prepared by the very high powered Committee was never expected to be formulated as asked for. 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, and the veterans can not be deceived with such a redundant and superfluous report.
(4). 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.
(5). 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 as well; rather this has always been the logic, argument and thinking of the concerned IAS officer in position. Hence, the committee proposed not to propose OROP to the defense pensioners, especially the retired commissioned Officers. Truly speaking, from the arguments put forth by the committee, it seems that they were considering the OROP for their own self cadre rather than for the defense forces pensioners.
(6). 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 more than two months. It has been rather, sheer wastage of time and efforts.
(7). Considering the above facts, how one can expect that the Committee could have done justice to the OROP for the defense forces pensioners.
(8). It is amazing and beyond belief that this report has been accepted and even approved by the Govt. as it is 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”, that had promised to give OROP and the same was incorporated in the Party manifesto before the previous general elections. Every one who so ever happens to know the contents of the OROP report on its perusing is most disheartened, discouraged, depressed, saddened, dejected, dispirited, crestfallen, dismayed, and disappointed.
(9). This announcement is no where near requirement of desired 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.
(10). Except the so called High Powered Committee and the Govt., it is well known to countrymen of the nation that the service conditions of the defense forces personnel are highly precarious, rough, tough, hard, grueling, arduous, ruthless, strenuous, severe, brutal, vigorous, rigorous, exhausting, backbreaking, troublesome, horrifying, scary, petrifying, risky, terrifying, frightening, harsh, perilous, death-defying, dangerous, hard-hitting, insecure, hazardous, treacherous, terrorizing, and unsafe. Such service conditions are incomparable, unrivaled, unparalleled, and unmatched with any of the services of the country.
(11). In addition to unfavourable service conditions of defense personnel; a wide disparity exists between civil services officers and defense services officers, which always have been persisting. Just to highlight a few of them, all the defense services personnel retire much before what the civil services employees retire. The promotions in defense services are too meager in comparison to civil services employees. 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. The transfers/postings for the defense services personnel are very frequent, where as the transfers/postings for civilian are most rare. The married accommodation for defense services personnel is never adequate/100%; where as all civil servants are authorised 100% married accommodation. 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. There are unaccounted and numerous such disparities between the defense services and civil services employees, which may possible to enumerate them here.
(12). Under the aforesaid service conditions and with such disparities, how many parents, especially the ministers, politicians and IAS officers who are in the helm of affairs would have ever sent or like to send their children, wards and relatives to join defense forces? It is assured there is none.
(13). Nevertheless, no nation can survive without the services of defense forces to safeguard its national borders and even to maintain internal security, especially under the present scenario. It is rather more imperative and essential in the present scenario, when our country is surrounded by the enemy countries. Some of them have been producing the infiltrators and terrorists, who have been playing havoc to disturb the peace and harmony of our countrymen as well as trying to destabilize our economy by smuggling and various other means.
(14). The Govt. seems to have forgotten the Kargil war, number of previous wars and recent havoc of Bombay created by the terrorists, when property worth billions was destroyed and a large number of valuable lives were lost. The Govt. seems to have totally forgotten all these.
(15). Further, the Prime Minister on behalf of the Govt. and whole nation pays homage to the martyrs by laying writhe at the India Gate to the sacrificial victims and war heroes and during any other contingencies, where all ranks of defense services have lost their lives for the nation and its nationals. But it seems; the Govt. does it just to show off and eyewash, thereby befooling the people and defense forces personnel. If it so, it is very sad on the part of the Govt.
(16). What are the places where forces are not deployed? They are deployed, not against the foreign enemies alone, but they are utilized against the enemies within the country, counter insurgencies, against militants, terrorists and remain stand-to for 24 hours to counter any eventualities, emergencies and emergencies. Even during the natural calamities like floods, fires and situations like tsunamis, it is the services of defense personnel which are called for to bring the things to normalcy. Even, during normal conditions, it is the defense forces personnel who remain stand-to for 24 hours to counter any eventualities throughout the year.
(17). Do the authorities not know that the defense forces personnel never remain in any station for more than two years? Some of the stations, though these may be peace areas, but there is no sufficient married accommodation and some places no or little required educational facilities. As a result, their families remain forced separated and their children and old parents/dependents keep suffering throughout their service.
(18). The above disparities, especially the service conditions are that of permanent nature which can never be removed. However, just to compensate at least to some extent, the Govt. must give better pay & allowances as well as pension to defense officers and PBOR commensurately to their counterparts under the prevailing service conditions and disparities.
(19). Accordingly, with the view to get some essentially required and genuine benefits, the OROP has been a persistent and relentless demand of defense services pensioner since decades. Yet, it is a very sad to say that the demand of OROP has been ruthlessly ignored and disregarded by the High Powered Committed constituted by the Govt., based on which the same is then rejected by the Govt.
(20). The entire nation knows of the defense forces personnel problems. It is due to these adverse service conditions and problems, the real talents do not come forward to join the defense services. Also, a large number of officers leave the forces to join private service. As a result of it, the present huge deficiency of defense services officers, which is prevailing since decades, is never likely to be made up unless the Govt. takes up necessary steps to give the soldiers better and attractive incentives in the form of pay, allowances, perks, pension and other benefits as and when suggested from time to time during their service as well as after retirement.
(21). Also, the entire nation knows and recognize the work and services of defense forces, but it is beyond anyone’s comprehension that why our own Govt does not pay any heed to the problems and genuine requirements of the defense services. It is really very strange.
(22). It is felt that anyone not realizing the problems and requirements of the defense forces, he is definitely not the well-wisher of the defense forces personnel; rather, he is the enemy of the defense forces. In fact such people are not the enemies of the defense forces personnel alone, but they are the enemies of the whole nation/country, who are trying to demoralize the forces to destabilize the nation. Is there any one from such persons’ generations, who would have ever thought of joining neither the defense forces nor they will ever ask their children to do so. Such persons presumably could have amassed unaccountable wealth, the means for which could be best known to them.
(23). Notwithstanding, in spite of the such a negative attitude of the Govt. and concerned authorities towards defense forces, the all ranks of defense forces still pray to the Almighty to give all of them some wisdom and shower best wishes over them.
(24). Nevertheless, the demand of the OROP will never be left here-itself come what may. This has to be followed with more vociferous protests by all the ex-servicemen organisations as well as Services Chiefs till the desired genuine results are achieved, thus to demand a re-look at the issue from the Govt. of UPA, headed by the Congress party which had included in its manifesto that of the previous as well 2004 polls.
K L Jaspal.
krishanlaljaspal@yahoo.co.in
Mob: 09471889885
One Rank One Pension
CAN SOME ONE SEND THIS PIECE OF WRITING TO THE PRESIDENT OF INDIA, PRIME MINISTER AND HIS CABINET OF MINISTERS AND MADAM SONIA GANDHI, THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS PARTY WHO BEFORE GENERAL ELECTIONS INCARPORATED IN THE PARTY MANIFESTO TO GRANT OROP?
ONE RANK ONE PENSION
As per budget speech of Fin Min, the OROP is approved for few ex-men. All Officers are debarred.
In fact it is not understood whom to believe. The Fin min says some thing else where as def min says some thing else. If the def min is right the govt needs to be congratulated for fulfilling its promise and long pending demand of def pensioners but if fin min is to be believed it is shame and disgrace to the concerned auth who drafted and approved OROP. It is shame for govt. for such action. The debarred def pensioners wish to know:
Are the debarred pensioners are not the ex-men, did they not serve the nation? Did they not fight and many of them give their lives while fighting against external and internal enemies, whose families and children suffered? Could the def pensioners served or fought the wars without officers/can it be ever possible in future? Were the deprived def pensioners not sincere honest loyal faithful obedient dutiful submissive docile tractable and disciplined soldiers?
If the fin Min is right, the following is submitted by:
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
SUBJECT: DIVIDING THE DEFENSE PENSIONERS AND CREATING DISCRIMINATION IN APPROVING ONE RANK AND ONE PENSION FOR THEM AND BY INCARPORATITING A CLAUSE OF PRO RATA OF 33YEARS FOR CALCULATING PENSION OF PRE-2006 PENSIONERS.
PROLOGUE.
1. In accordance with the contents of Article 14, this piece of writing 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. Efforts are made to explain that 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. 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.
2. 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.
CLASSIFICATIONS OF DEFENSE SERVICE PENSIONERS CARRIED OUT BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DISREGARDING AND DISRESPECTING THE CONTENTENTS AND SPIRIT OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WHICH FORBIDS FOR DOING SO.
5. Since inception of defense forces, the defense pensioners have just in one class; irrespective of ranks they wear i.e. retired defense personnel 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. Factually, Just to partially approving the concept of OROP and denying the benefit to a large number of defense pensioners, the Govt. of India have divided one united and unified the homogeneous class of ex-servicemen/defense pensioners in number of classes as under:
7. Firstly: Post 2006 defense pensioners and secondly: Pre-2006 defense pensioners. Such a division was never made earlier for affording any pensionary benefit to a few of them and debarring all others after any of the Central Pay Commissions.
8. The pre-2006 defense pensioners have been further divided in other two classes; Firstly: Pre-1997 defense pensioners and secondly: Post 1997 defense pensioners upto Dec 31 2005. Even such a division was never made earlier for affording any pensionary benefit to a few of them and debarring a large number of all others after any of the Central Pay Commissions.
9. They have once again divided the defense pensioners in other two classes: Firstly, defense pensioners that of personnel below officers’ ranks (PBOR) and secondly, defense pensioners of officers’ ranks, in spite of the fact that they always have been a unified class of es-servicemen/ex-defense pensioners. This too 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.
10. Like-wise, 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 classes: Firstly, the present pensioners i.e. post 2006 pensioners to give full pension on completion of 20 years service, and secondly, pre-2006 pensioners to re-fix their pension on the bases of completion of 33 years of service, in spite of the fact that 6th CPC has completely removed this earlier existing clause. The division of pensioners in this manner is just for applying pro rata of 33 years, only i.e. in the case of pre-2006 pensioners alone, though this clause stand removed by the 6th CPC. However, even such a division was never made earlier for affording any pensionary benefit to some of the pensioners, while others are to be denied after any of the Central Pay Commissions.
11. It seems if the govt. has divided the pensioners with ulterior, underhanded, mysterious and inexplicable motive so that none of the large number of pensioners can put forth their grievances unitedly.
12. It is surprising to note that our own Govt have adopted this sort of a policy of dividing even the defense pensioners who have been nation’s bravest heroes, most sincere, honest, loyal, faithful, obedient, dutiful, submissive, docile, tractable, and disciplined soldiers during their service. They served the nation in most hostile, unfavourable conditions and difficult terrains on its border to safe guard its safety and security. They fought against external and internal enemies, without caring of their own life as well as future of their families and children. The Govt must have done not so, rather, must have some soft corner to do justice to the pensioners, especially to the defense pensioners, who have given their entire prime youth in service of the nation.
WELFARE OF DEFENSE PERSONNEL.
13. It is that of paramount importance that soldiers’ welfare while they are serving 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 morale is never effected adversely. If it is not done, the morale, self-confidence, self-esteem, and buoyancy of the soldiers are most likely to be effected adversely. Considering the conditions a soldier is required to serve, nature of his duties and expectations from him, suitable candidate may not like to join the forces, which will not in the national interest and may prove to be disastrous and catastrophic at some unknown stage
CONCEPT OF ONE RANK ONE PENSION (OROP).
14. Principally, the concept of ONE RANK ONE PENSION (OROP) implies that, all the defense personnel, who have retired or will be retiring from the same rank/post with the same length of service, 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 render for the national security.
15. The demand of One Rank One Pension (OROP) had been pending since decades. The govt. has divided the defense personnel in number of classes just to debar a large number of them from the concept and benefit of entitlement of One Rank One Pension (OROP) before its approval.
16. 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.
17. 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).
18. The National Congress party and Bhatia Janta party had incorporated in their 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 assuming the power of its second tenure.
19. Nevertheless, it is most disappointing to note that while approving 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 some of them. It is regretted that while approving OROP, 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 of the constitution of the country.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. The debarred defense forces pensioners wish to ask the present Govt. and the concerned authorities to reply to the question: Does any of the authorities who approved such an awful, appalling, shocking, evil, wicked, depraved, brutal, and abysmal action of dividing the defense pensioners in such a deceitful, cunning, devious and deceitful manner and debarring a large number of them from the benefit of OROP have any 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 and did they not serve the nation, may they be officers or PBOR of pre-1997 period and the officers of post 1997 period?
b. 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?
c. Could the defense forces pensioners served or fought the wars/battles against the enemies without the officers or can it be possible ever in future?
d. 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?
e. 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?
f. 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?
24. The whole nation in general and the debarred defense pensioners in particular would like to know the answers of the above questions and similar many more questions. It is felt that no concerned authorities can ever answer the above questions.
25. 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 his pay except Rupee one as his salary. Hence, they need not get the benefit of OROP.
26. 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 they are not required to give the benefit of OROP. Surprisingly, all the MPs, irrespective any amount of wealth they possess, even then they get full pension for each and all of their tenures for any amount of period they remain MPS, where as the defense pensioners are denied full pension/OROP for their such a long service to the nation.
27. 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 the pre-2006 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 a specified date. 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 can be easily severed and set aside by any court of the country.
28. The Govt. is fully aware of the contents of Article 14 and its requirement/importance. 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 and fortuitous circumstances which are vulnerable as denying equality be severed and struck down by the govt. with immediate effect.
29. 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 the 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.
APPLYING PRO RATA OF 33 YEARS FOR GIVING FULL PENSION.
30. As mentioned at para 10 above, the DP&T (P&PW have retained the clause of pro rata of 33 years, quoting; it is as per pension regulations of 1972. The pension regulations were originally framed afresh at that time when number of clauses were incorporated in these regulations. It may be noted that most of the clauses have undergone changes since thereafter.
31. 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 lay 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 re-fixed e.t.c. These regulations are being changed periodically since 1972. Nevertheless, these have always been uniformly applied category-wise/class-wise, but class/category was never further divided to give benefit to some and deny the others. Rather, it has always been done without any discrimination. However, if the Govt. ever divided the category or class of employees for whatever reasons that happened to be against the interest of some pensioners, the courts of the land always struck down such divisions. Hence, in view of the fact that 6th CPC has removed the period of 33 years service for giving full pension and full pension, which now is eligible after 20 years of service; retaining the pro rata of 33 years for pre 2006 pension alone is highly illogical and discriminatory.
32. It is reiterated that dividing the defense personnel in various classes just for approving the concept/benefit of OROP for a few of them and denying it to a large number of them. Also, dividing all other pensioners as mentioned above, is just for applying the pro rata of 33 year for re-fixation of their pension after 6th CPC. It is emphatically, forcefully, ardently, insistently, strongly, heartily and vigorously stated that while creating such a division among the defense as well as all other pensioners in this manner, the Govt has completely, totally, entirely, fully, utterly, and absolutely neglected the principal of equality and the contents of Article 14 and even overlooked, ignored and disregarded the judgements of the Apex Court of the country and also various other courts delivered their judgments in adopting the principal of equality in the past.
33. Further, the govt. and concerned authorities, are also 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.
34. 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.
35. 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:
a. “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.”
b. 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”
36. 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.
37. 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.
38. 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.
39. Deprival of due and that too justified due of approval of concept of OROP for a large number of the 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.
40. It is submitted that it may not be possible for the debarred old disciplined defense and civil pensioners to do what other civilian force of the country can do, due to their old age, poor health, left over responsibilities and financial constraints; moreover all of them being spread in far flung areas and some in most remote areas in the country. They are unable to approach any of the concerned authorities or Courts of Law to seek justice due to their inabilities and constrains. The govt. therefore must not take undue advantage of their inabilities, rather, must have mercy on them to give OROP to all the defense pensioners irrespective of their date of retirement and the ranks they held before their retirement and 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.
41. 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 reconsider the matter to have sympathetic consideration in favour of old soldiers to approve One Rank One Pension for all of them without any discrimination, and prejudice.
42. The govt. and the concerned authorities therefore to please do 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.
43. 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 totality for all the defense forces pensioners without attaching any strings of dates of retirement or ranks they wore before their retirement.
44. Also, another earnest request is made to remove the clause of pro rata of 33 years for all the pre-2006 pensioners for fixation of their revised pension.
45. The most urgent action in the matter is solicited please.
Yours Sincerely,
Lt. Col. (retd). K L Jaspal.
ONE RANK ONE PENSION
As per budget speech of Fin Min, the OROP is approved for few ex-men. All Officers are debarred.
In fact it is not understood whom to believe. The Fin min says some thing else where as def min says some thing else. If the def min is right the govt needs to be congratulated for fulfilling its promise and long pending demand of def pensioners but if fin min is to be believed it is shame and disgrace to the concerned auth who drafted and approved OROP. It is shame for govt. for such action. The debarred def pensioners wish to know:
Are the debarred pensioners are not the ex-men, did they not serve the nation? Did they not fight and many of them give their lives while fighting against external and internal enemies, whose families and children suffered? Could the def pensioners served or fought the wars without officers/can it be ever possible in future? Were the deprived def pensioners not sincere honest loyal faithful obedient dutiful submissive docile tractable and disciplined soldiers?
If the fin Min is right, the following is submitted by:
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
SUBJECT: DIVIDING THE DEFENSE PENSIONERS AND CREATING DISCRIMINATION IN APPROVING ONE RANK AND ONE PENSION FOR THEM AND BY INCARPORATITING A CLAUSE OF PRO RATA OF 33YEARS FOR CALCULATING PENSION OF PRE-2006 PENSIONERS.
PROLOGUE.
1. In accordance with the contents of Article 14, this piece of writing 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. Efforts are made to explain that 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. 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.
2. 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.
CLASSIFICATIONS OF DEFENSE SERVICE PENSIONERS CARRIED OUT BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DISREGARDING AND DISRESPECTING THE CONTENTENTS AND SPIRIT OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WHICH FORBIDS FOR DOING SO.
5. Since inception of defense forces, the defense pensioners have just in one class; irrespective of ranks they wear i.e. retired defense personnel 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. Factually, Just to partially approving the concept of OROP and denying the benefit to a large number of defense pensioners, the Govt. of India have divided one united and unified the homogeneous class of ex-servicemen/defense pensioners in number of classes as under:
7. Firstly: Post 2006 defense pensioners and secondly: Pre-2006 defense pensioners. Such a division was never made earlier for affording any pensionary benefit to a few of them and debarring all others after any of the Central Pay Commissions.
8. The pre-2006 defense pensioners have been further divided in other two classes; Firstly: Pre-1997 defense pensioners and secondly: Post 1997 defense pensioners upto Dec 31 2005. Even such a division was never made earlier for affording any pensionary benefit to a few of them and debarring a large number of all others after any of the Central Pay Commissions.
9. They have once again divided the defense pensioners in other two classes: Firstly, defense pensioners that of personnel below officers’ ranks (PBOR) and secondly, defense pensioners of officers’ ranks, in spite of the fact that they always have been a unified class of es-servicemen/ex-defense pensioners. This too 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.
10. Like-wise, 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 classes: Firstly, the present pensioners i.e. post 2006 pensioners to give full pension on completion of 20 years service, and secondly, pre-2006 pensioners to re-fix their pension on the bases of completion of 33 years of service, in spite of the fact that 6th CPC has completely removed this earlier existing clause. The division of pensioners in this manner is just for applying pro rata of 33 years, only i.e. in the case of pre-2006 pensioners alone, though this clause stand removed by the 6th CPC. However, even such a division was never made earlier for affording any pensionary benefit to some of the pensioners, while others are to be denied after any of the Central Pay Commissions.
11. It seems if the govt. has divided the pensioners with ulterior, underhanded, mysterious and inexplicable motive so that none of the large number of pensioners can put forth their grievances unitedly.
12. It is surprising to note that our own Govt have adopted this sort of a policy of dividing even the defense pensioners who have been nation’s bravest heroes, most sincere, honest, loyal, faithful, obedient, dutiful, submissive, docile, tractable, and disciplined soldiers during their service. They served the nation in most hostile, unfavourable conditions and difficult terrains on its border to safe guard its safety and security. They fought against external and internal enemies, without caring of their own life as well as future of their families and children. The Govt must have done not so, rather, must have some soft corner to do justice to the pensioners, especially to the defense pensioners, who have given their entire prime youth in service of the nation.
WELFARE OF DEFENSE PERSONNEL.
13. It is that of paramount importance that soldiers’ welfare while they are serving 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 morale is never effected adversely. If it is not done, the morale, self-confidence, self-esteem, and buoyancy of the soldiers are most likely to be effected adversely. Considering the conditions a soldier is required to serve, nature of his duties and expectations from him, suitable candidate may not like to join the forces, which will not in the national interest and may prove to be disastrous and catastrophic at some unknown stage
CONCEPT OF ONE RANK ONE PENSION (OROP).
14. Principally, the concept of ONE RANK ONE PENSION (OROP) implies that, all the defense personnel, who have retired or will be retiring from the same rank/post with the same length of service, 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 render for the national security.
15. The demand of One Rank One Pension (OROP) had been pending since decades. The govt. has divided the defense personnel in number of classes just to debar a large number of them from the concept and benefit of entitlement of One Rank One Pension (OROP) before its approval.
16. 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.
17. 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).
18. The National Congress party and Bhatia Janta party had incorporated in their 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 assuming the power of its second tenure.
19. Nevertheless, it is most disappointing to note that while approving 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 some of them. It is regretted that while approving OROP, 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 of the constitution of the country.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. The debarred defense forces pensioners wish to ask the present Govt. and the concerned authorities to reply to the question: Does any of the authorities who approved such an awful, appalling, shocking, evil, wicked, depraved, brutal, and abysmal action of dividing the defense pensioners in such a deceitful, cunning, devious and deceitful manner and debarring a large number of them from the benefit of OROP have any 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 and did they not serve the nation, may they be officers or PBOR of pre-1997 period and the officers of post 1997 period?
b. 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?
c. Could the defense forces pensioners served or fought the wars/battles against the enemies without the officers or can it be possible ever in future?
d. 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?
e. 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?
f. 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?
24. The whole nation in general and the debarred defense pensioners in particular would like to know the answers of the above questions and similar many more questions. It is felt that no concerned authorities can ever answer the above questions.
25. 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 his pay except Rupee one as his salary. Hence, they need not get the benefit of OROP.
26. 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 they are not required to give the benefit of OROP. Surprisingly, all the MPs, irrespective any amount of wealth they possess, even then they get full pension for each and all of their tenures for any amount of period they remain MPS, where as the defense pensioners are denied full pension/OROP for their such a long service to the nation.
27. 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 the pre-2006 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 a specified date. 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 can be easily severed and set aside by any court of the country.
28. The Govt. is fully aware of the contents of Article 14 and its requirement/importance. 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 and fortuitous circumstances which are vulnerable as denying equality be severed and struck down by the govt. with immediate effect.
29. 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 the 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.
APPLYING PRO RATA OF 33 YEARS FOR GIVING FULL PENSION.
30. As mentioned at para 10 above, the DP&T (P&PW have retained the clause of pro rata of 33 years, quoting; it is as per pension regulations of 1972. The pension regulations were originally framed afresh at that time when number of clauses were incorporated in these regulations. It may be noted that most of the clauses have undergone changes since thereafter.
31. 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 lay 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 re-fixed e.t.c. These regulations are being changed periodically since 1972. Nevertheless, these have always been uniformly applied category-wise/class-wise, but class/category was never further divided to give benefit to some and deny the others. Rather, it has always been done without any discrimination. However, if the Govt. ever divided the category or class of employees for whatever reasons that happened to be against the interest of some pensioners, the courts of the land always struck down such divisions. Hence, in view of the fact that 6th CPC has removed the period of 33 years service for giving full pension and full pension, which now is eligible after 20 years of service; retaining the pro rata of 33 years for pre 2006 pension alone is highly illogical and discriminatory.
32. It is reiterated that dividing the defense personnel in various classes just for approving the concept/benefit of OROP for a few of them and denying it to a large number of them. Also, dividing all other pensioners as mentioned above, is just for applying the pro rata of 33 year for re-fixation of their pension after 6th CPC. It is emphatically, forcefully, ardently, insistently, strongly, heartily and vigorously stated that while creating such a division among the defense as well as all other pensioners in this manner, the Govt has completely, totally, entirely, fully, utterly, and absolutely neglected the principal of equality and the contents of Article 14 and even overlooked, ignored and disregarded the judgements of the Apex Court of the country and also various other courts delivered their judgments in adopting the principal of equality in the past.
33. Further, the govt. and concerned authorities, are also 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.
34. 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.
35. 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:
a. “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.”
b. 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”
36. 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.
37. 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.
38. 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.
39. Deprival of due and that too justified due of approval of concept of OROP for a large number of the 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.
40. It is submitted that it may not be possible for the debarred old disciplined defense and civil pensioners to do what other civilian force of the country can do, due to their old age, poor health, left over responsibilities and financial constraints; moreover all of them being spread in far flung areas and some in most remote areas in the country. They are unable to approach any of the concerned authorities or Courts of Law to seek justice due to their inabilities and constrains. The govt. therefore must not take undue advantage of their inabilities, rather, must have mercy on them to give OROP to all the defense pensioners irrespective of their date of retirement and the ranks they held before their retirement and 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.
41. 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 reconsider the matter to have sympathetic consideration in favour of old soldiers to approve One Rank One Pension for all of them without any discrimination, and prejudice.
42. The govt. and the concerned authorities therefore to please do 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.
43. 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 totality for all the defense forces pensioners without attaching any strings of dates of retirement or ranks they wore before their retirement.
44. Also, another earnest request is made to remove the clause of pro rata of 33 years for all the pre-2006 pensioners for fixation of their revised pension.
45. The most urgent action in the matter is solicited please.
Yours Sincerely,
Lt. Col. (retd). K L Jaspal.
Monday, September 29, 2008
DETAILS OF PAY DISPARITIES OF DEFENSE PERSONS IN 6TH PAY COMMISSION REPORT
REMOVAL OF DISPARITIES OF DEFENSE PERSONNEL.
1. It may be noted that the defense services persons, while putting across their grievances while quoting pay parities, they never mean any thing against the IAS officers, Para Military Services officers or any one else. Rather, they are happy to note that all these officers have been given their legitimate due for which they are fully satisfied.
2. It is needless to emphasize that the financial benefits to the defense persons definitely have to be kept in mind. This is emphatically important considering their service conditions and low retirement age. However, may they be officers or PBOR, their prestige, dignity and honor is rather that of more importance, which must not be compromised, destroyed, degraded and tarnished as has been done in the notified 6th Pay Commission Report. This statement is evident from the fact that the seniority and status of all the Govt. employees will be determined by the Grade Pay of all the officials in accordance with the 6th pay commission report.
3. Nevertheless, the three Chiefs of Defense Services have pointed out the Pay Parities with vivid disparities in the Gde. Pay of some of the defense officers of the rank of Lt. Cols., Lt. Gens. and equivalent ranks of all three services, especially in comparison to IAS Officers and Para Military Officers. It has been categorically pointed out by the three Chiefs of Defense Services, the proposed pay parities will have adverse effects during the joint operations.
4. With due apology, this is to point out that in addition to the above disparities, there are still number of more grave disparities in the cases of officers of the ranks of Majors, captains and Lieutenants, and equivalent ranks of all three services as well as trainees of these services.
5. You may kindly see that the pre-revised scales of pay of civil services officers falling in S-21, S-22, and S-23 and equivalent posts of officers of Para Military Forces were much less then the pay scale of Majors and equivalent ranks of all three services. Irrespective of this fact; in accordance with the 6th pa commission report notifications, the Civilian Officers of the categories mentioned ibid are given the Grade Pay of Rs. 7600/-, where as all officers of the rank of Majors and equivalent ranks of all three services have been given the Grade pay of Rs. 6600/- only. Further, the Chief Nursing Officers of Para Military Services, the Principals of schools, Education Officers, Assistant Directors and Managers, whose pre-revised scales were 10000-15200; all of them have now been given the Grade Pay of Rs. 7600/-, whereas, the officers of the rank of Majors and equivalent ranks of all three services, earlier drawing much higher pay scale than them, have been given the Grade pay of Rs. 6600/- only.
6. The degradation of Defense Services Officers does not end here itself. If you peruse the VI CPC report and notifications thereto. You will see that the ‘Vice Principal Grade I’ and Post Graduate Teacher Grade I of schools whose pre-revised scale was 8000-13200 are now given the Grade Pay of Rs. 6600/-, but in the case of the officers of the rank of Captains and equivalent ranks of all three services, whose pre-revised pay was much higher than the officials mentioned above are given Grade Pay of 6100/- only. Likewise, the pre-revised pay scale of the officers of the rank of Lieutenants and equivalent ranks of all three services was starting from Rs 8250/ which is more than the officials mentioned ibid, their Grade Pay is given just Rs. 5400/- only.
7. It is emphatically and forcefully verbalized that all the Pay Bands and Grade pay given to the Defense Officers should be made applicable to them after rendering the same period of service as that is applicable to the IAS Officers and Para Military Officers. There must not be any discrimination in this regard.
8. Further, it may be seen that when any officers or officials of Central or State Govt. join any service in any post, they start getting their full pay and allowances from the day they join the service. Their entire service is counted for increments, promotions and retirement from the first very day. They are paid their full pay and allowances and all other benefits of service during their training period, irrespective of duration of their training. Contrary to this, the Officers and PBOR of Defense services are paid just stipend only during the period of their initial training. Also, this period is not counted for giving increments, promotions and retirement. Such a big discrimination and injustice must not be done to the defense services personnel alone.
9. The 6th Pay Commission and the Govt. has very kindly recommended and accepted the prolonged and long standing/awaited demand of Military Service Pay (‘MSP’) of defense personnel. But, it is highly unjustified as to why the MSP should not be applicable w. e. f. the day, the 6th pay commission is effective. Were the soldiers not the part of defense forces and/or they have not been performing their duties from 1 Jan 2006 onward? If they are legitimate part of defense forces and have been performing their duties since 1 Jan 2006 and the 6th Pay commission is since effective from 1 Jan 2006, the MSP must be given to them w.e.f that very date and the arrears whatever may be due, should be paid accordingly.
10. Further, Military Service Pay is since the Pay, it is highly illogical not to consider it to calculate dearness allowance and increments on this pay. It may be noted that the Central Govt. has agreed to pay dearness allowance on the Transport Allowance. It is surprising to note that when the tpt. allowance is an allowance and not the pay, the dearness allowance is permitted on it, but the MSP is the Pay, yet, it is not considered for the purpose. Hence, the Govt. must reconsider its decision to pay dearness allowance on MSP as well as, it must be included to calculate increments w.e.f. 01 Jan 2006 please.
11. One Rank One-Pension issue has been long outstanding. This matter is most judicious and deserving since the service personnel including officers retire at a very early age and none of them finds any avenues for discharging their entire responsibilities and living after their retirement. They are totally dependent on their pension only.
12. At the time of implementation of pay commission report, there occurs a big disparity in the pension of present and previously retired ex-service persons retired from the same rank. The pension of presently retired person is fixed based on 50% of last 10 months average pay after rendering total period of service by him. In the case of persons retired before the implementation of pay commission report, their pension is re-fixed based on minimum of the new pay scale of the rank/post from which they retired, irrespective of any amount of period of service they had rendered before their retirement. The entire period of service they rendered before their retirement is completely ignored. Consequently, there becomes a wide gap of eligibility of pension between the present/future and previously retired persons, though in both cases, they retired or will retire from the same rank. This is absolutely in contravention to the Apex Court’s recent decision. Considering this fact as well as Apex court judgement, the authorities must bear in mind the rank and period of rendered service while re-fixing the pension of all persons who retired before implementation of pay commission report. In accordance with this analogy, the authorities must consider the pensionable pay of a serving person after the period of service that was rendered by a retired person for re-fixing his pension on implementation of any pay commission report. If pension is ever re-fixed against this principle, it will be contrary to the Apex Court judgement.
13. Previously, the defense service officers, who could not get selection grade rank of Lt. Col and equivalents rank; they used to get this rank after rendering 21 years of service. Such officers were denied rank pay of Lt. Col and their pension was fixed without including the rank pay of this rank. It is of utmost importance to note that presently, all officers of defense services attain the rank of time scale Lt. Col after rendering 13 years of service, and they are entitled full pension, considering their basic pay and rank pay. Further, after implementation of sixth pay commission report, they will get their full pension after including running pay of applicable “band pay, grade pay and MSP’. The previously retired officers since attain the rank in question after 21 years and present ones, get this rank after 13 years, there must not be any discrimination in the past and present officers of the rank of Lt. Col. while fixing/re-fixing the pension in either case.
14. The present minimum service required for officers to be eligible for pension is 20 years. The short service commissioned officers, who are asked to leave service after 10/14 years, are not eligible for pension. The pension for such officers should be considered, though it may not be full pension as is applicable for the officers who retire after rendering 20 years or more service. It can be commensurately less in comparison to minimum 20 years requirement. However, such short commissioned officers, who voluntarily seek retirement after stipulated period or before 20 years may not be considered for this purpose.
15. In view of the foregoing, a most sincere and earnest appeal is made to the Prime Minister, External Affairs minister, who is the Chairman of special review committee for the purpose, Defense Minister, Finance Minister and all other authorities to do justice to the Defense Officers and PBOR of all three services to look into the matter judiciously, restore their status and dignity and give them their due as suggested below:-
(a). In the cases of Lt. Generals, Lt. Colonels and PBOR, as taken up by the Chiefs of three Defense Services.
(b). In the case of the officers of the rank of Majors and equivalent ranks of all three services, the Grade pay of Rs. 7600/- be given.
(c). In the case of the officers of the rank of Captains and equivalent ranks of all three services, the Grade pay of Rs. 6600/- be given.
(d). In the case of the officers of the rank of Lieutenants and equivalent ranks of all three services, the Grade pay of Rs. 6100/- be given.
(e). Give full pay, allowances and Grade Pay to all the Officers and PBOR of Defense services during the period of their initial training as is being done in the case of other Central and State Govt. Officials.
(f). The Pay Bands and Grade pay given to the Defense Officers should be made applicable after rendering the same period of service as that is applicable to the IAS Officers and Para Military Officers. There must not be any discrimination in this regard.
(g). In accordance with Hon’ able Apex Court’s recent decision; the Govt. must bear in mind to ensure to fix the pension of officers previously retired or retiring hereafter in the same rank of Lt Col. may it be time scale or previous selection grade or any other same rank without any discrimination.
(h). The short service commissioned officers, who are asked to leave service after rendering 10/14 service years, be made eligible for pension, which may be commensurately less in comparison to 20 years.
(i). Considering the fact explained at Para 12 above as well as recent Apex Court judgement, the authorities must bear in mind the rank and period of rendered service while re-fixing the pension of all persons who retired before implementation of pay commission report. In accordance with this analogy, the authorities must consider total pensionable pay of a serving person after the period of service that was rendered by a retired person for re-fixing every retired person’s pension on implementation of any pay commission report.
17. If suggestions above are accepted, it is assured that it will have great impact to raise the morale of Defense Services Personnel and attract desired, rather better talents to join Military Services, thus huge vacancies of officers, existing since long, will be made up. This will prove to be in the best interest of the nation and national security.
Thanks.
Yours truly,
Jassu
1. It may be noted that the defense services persons, while putting across their grievances while quoting pay parities, they never mean any thing against the IAS officers, Para Military Services officers or any one else. Rather, they are happy to note that all these officers have been given their legitimate due for which they are fully satisfied.
2. It is needless to emphasize that the financial benefits to the defense persons definitely have to be kept in mind. This is emphatically important considering their service conditions and low retirement age. However, may they be officers or PBOR, their prestige, dignity and honor is rather that of more importance, which must not be compromised, destroyed, degraded and tarnished as has been done in the notified 6th Pay Commission Report. This statement is evident from the fact that the seniority and status of all the Govt. employees will be determined by the Grade Pay of all the officials in accordance with the 6th pay commission report.
3. Nevertheless, the three Chiefs of Defense Services have pointed out the Pay Parities with vivid disparities in the Gde. Pay of some of the defense officers of the rank of Lt. Cols., Lt. Gens. and equivalent ranks of all three services, especially in comparison to IAS Officers and Para Military Officers. It has been categorically pointed out by the three Chiefs of Defense Services, the proposed pay parities will have adverse effects during the joint operations.
4. With due apology, this is to point out that in addition to the above disparities, there are still number of more grave disparities in the cases of officers of the ranks of Majors, captains and Lieutenants, and equivalent ranks of all three services as well as trainees of these services.
5. You may kindly see that the pre-revised scales of pay of civil services officers falling in S-21, S-22, and S-23 and equivalent posts of officers of Para Military Forces were much less then the pay scale of Majors and equivalent ranks of all three services. Irrespective of this fact; in accordance with the 6th pa commission report notifications, the Civilian Officers of the categories mentioned ibid are given the Grade Pay of Rs. 7600/-, where as all officers of the rank of Majors and equivalent ranks of all three services have been given the Grade pay of Rs. 6600/- only. Further, the Chief Nursing Officers of Para Military Services, the Principals of schools, Education Officers, Assistant Directors and Managers, whose pre-revised scales were 10000-15200; all of them have now been given the Grade Pay of Rs. 7600/-, whereas, the officers of the rank of Majors and equivalent ranks of all three services, earlier drawing much higher pay scale than them, have been given the Grade pay of Rs. 6600/- only.
6. The degradation of Defense Services Officers does not end here itself. If you peruse the VI CPC report and notifications thereto. You will see that the ‘Vice Principal Grade I’ and Post Graduate Teacher Grade I of schools whose pre-revised scale was 8000-13200 are now given the Grade Pay of Rs. 6600/-, but in the case of the officers of the rank of Captains and equivalent ranks of all three services, whose pre-revised pay was much higher than the officials mentioned above are given Grade Pay of 6100/- only. Likewise, the pre-revised pay scale of the officers of the rank of Lieutenants and equivalent ranks of all three services was starting from Rs 8250/ which is more than the officials mentioned ibid, their Grade Pay is given just Rs. 5400/- only.
7. It is emphatically and forcefully verbalized that all the Pay Bands and Grade pay given to the Defense Officers should be made applicable to them after rendering the same period of service as that is applicable to the IAS Officers and Para Military Officers. There must not be any discrimination in this regard.
8. Further, it may be seen that when any officers or officials of Central or State Govt. join any service in any post, they start getting their full pay and allowances from the day they join the service. Their entire service is counted for increments, promotions and retirement from the first very day. They are paid their full pay and allowances and all other benefits of service during their training period, irrespective of duration of their training. Contrary to this, the Officers and PBOR of Defense services are paid just stipend only during the period of their initial training. Also, this period is not counted for giving increments, promotions and retirement. Such a big discrimination and injustice must not be done to the defense services personnel alone.
9. The 6th Pay Commission and the Govt. has very kindly recommended and accepted the prolonged and long standing/awaited demand of Military Service Pay (‘MSP’) of defense personnel. But, it is highly unjustified as to why the MSP should not be applicable w. e. f. the day, the 6th pay commission is effective. Were the soldiers not the part of defense forces and/or they have not been performing their duties from 1 Jan 2006 onward? If they are legitimate part of defense forces and have been performing their duties since 1 Jan 2006 and the 6th Pay commission is since effective from 1 Jan 2006, the MSP must be given to them w.e.f that very date and the arrears whatever may be due, should be paid accordingly.
10. Further, Military Service Pay is since the Pay, it is highly illogical not to consider it to calculate dearness allowance and increments on this pay. It may be noted that the Central Govt. has agreed to pay dearness allowance on the Transport Allowance. It is surprising to note that when the tpt. allowance is an allowance and not the pay, the dearness allowance is permitted on it, but the MSP is the Pay, yet, it is not considered for the purpose. Hence, the Govt. must reconsider its decision to pay dearness allowance on MSP as well as, it must be included to calculate increments w.e.f. 01 Jan 2006 please.
11. One Rank One-Pension issue has been long outstanding. This matter is most judicious and deserving since the service personnel including officers retire at a very early age and none of them finds any avenues for discharging their entire responsibilities and living after their retirement. They are totally dependent on their pension only.
12. At the time of implementation of pay commission report, there occurs a big disparity in the pension of present and previously retired ex-service persons retired from the same rank. The pension of presently retired person is fixed based on 50% of last 10 months average pay after rendering total period of service by him. In the case of persons retired before the implementation of pay commission report, their pension is re-fixed based on minimum of the new pay scale of the rank/post from which they retired, irrespective of any amount of period of service they had rendered before their retirement. The entire period of service they rendered before their retirement is completely ignored. Consequently, there becomes a wide gap of eligibility of pension between the present/future and previously retired persons, though in both cases, they retired or will retire from the same rank. This is absolutely in contravention to the Apex Court’s recent decision. Considering this fact as well as Apex court judgement, the authorities must bear in mind the rank and period of rendered service while re-fixing the pension of all persons who retired before implementation of pay commission report. In accordance with this analogy, the authorities must consider the pensionable pay of a serving person after the period of service that was rendered by a retired person for re-fixing his pension on implementation of any pay commission report. If pension is ever re-fixed against this principle, it will be contrary to the Apex Court judgement.
13. Previously, the defense service officers, who could not get selection grade rank of Lt. Col and equivalents rank; they used to get this rank after rendering 21 years of service. Such officers were denied rank pay of Lt. Col and their pension was fixed without including the rank pay of this rank. It is of utmost importance to note that presently, all officers of defense services attain the rank of time scale Lt. Col after rendering 13 years of service, and they are entitled full pension, considering their basic pay and rank pay. Further, after implementation of sixth pay commission report, they will get their full pension after including running pay of applicable “band pay, grade pay and MSP’. The previously retired officers since attain the rank in question after 21 years and present ones, get this rank after 13 years, there must not be any discrimination in the past and present officers of the rank of Lt. Col. while fixing/re-fixing the pension in either case.
14. The present minimum service required for officers to be eligible for pension is 20 years. The short service commissioned officers, who are asked to leave service after 10/14 years, are not eligible for pension. The pension for such officers should be considered, though it may not be full pension as is applicable for the officers who retire after rendering 20 years or more service. It can be commensurately less in comparison to minimum 20 years requirement. However, such short commissioned officers, who voluntarily seek retirement after stipulated period or before 20 years may not be considered for this purpose.
15. In view of the foregoing, a most sincere and earnest appeal is made to the Prime Minister, External Affairs minister, who is the Chairman of special review committee for the purpose, Defense Minister, Finance Minister and all other authorities to do justice to the Defense Officers and PBOR of all three services to look into the matter judiciously, restore their status and dignity and give them their due as suggested below:-
(a). In the cases of Lt. Generals, Lt. Colonels and PBOR, as taken up by the Chiefs of three Defense Services.
(b). In the case of the officers of the rank of Majors and equivalent ranks of all three services, the Grade pay of Rs. 7600/- be given.
(c). In the case of the officers of the rank of Captains and equivalent ranks of all three services, the Grade pay of Rs. 6600/- be given.
(d). In the case of the officers of the rank of Lieutenants and equivalent ranks of all three services, the Grade pay of Rs. 6100/- be given.
(e). Give full pay, allowances and Grade Pay to all the Officers and PBOR of Defense services during the period of their initial training as is being done in the case of other Central and State Govt. Officials.
(f). The Pay Bands and Grade pay given to the Defense Officers should be made applicable after rendering the same period of service as that is applicable to the IAS Officers and Para Military Officers. There must not be any discrimination in this regard.
(g). In accordance with Hon’ able Apex Court’s recent decision; the Govt. must bear in mind to ensure to fix the pension of officers previously retired or retiring hereafter in the same rank of Lt Col. may it be time scale or previous selection grade or any other same rank without any discrimination.
(h). The short service commissioned officers, who are asked to leave service after rendering 10/14 service years, be made eligible for pension, which may be commensurately less in comparison to 20 years.
(i). Considering the fact explained at Para 12 above as well as recent Apex Court judgement, the authorities must bear in mind the rank and period of rendered service while re-fixing the pension of all persons who retired before implementation of pay commission report. In accordance with this analogy, the authorities must consider total pensionable pay of a serving person after the period of service that was rendered by a retired person for re-fixing every retired person’s pension on implementation of any pay commission report.
17. If suggestions above are accepted, it is assured that it will have great impact to raise the morale of Defense Services Personnel and attract desired, rather better talents to join Military Services, thus huge vacancies of officers, existing since long, will be made up. This will prove to be in the best interest of the nation and national security.
Thanks.
Yours truly,
Jassu
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)