orop 1

[a] One Rank One Pension is an old issue, it was in ‘vogue till 1973 when the Third Central Pay Commission took ex-parte decision against the One Rank One Pension formula”. (P 9 Para 10.2)

[b] Since 1973 OROP has been considered by the Government in Third Central Pay Commission, in 1973, Fourth Central Pay Commission, in 1986, Fifth Central Pay Commission, in 1996, Sixth Central Pay Commission considered, in 2006. ( P 9 Para 10.1)

The committee found that in addition to Pay Commissions, OROP has been considered by the Sharad Pawar Committee, in 1991; Inter-Ministerial Committee, in 2003; Group of Ministers, in 2005; and Cabinet Secretary Committee. The Committee concluded that the repeated consideration by the Government of OROP “indicate that there is merit in the demand for One Rank One Pension by Armed Forces Personnel, otherwise the matter would not have been considered time and again by various committees of the Government and Central Pay Commissions. It could have been rejected once and for all and principle of res judicata would have been applied to this demand. Hence, it definitely deserves attention of the Parliamentary Committee as well as the Government.” (P 9 Para 10.1)

[c] The Committee on Defence (2009-10) (Fifteenth Lok Sabha) in its Seventh Report recommended that the Government should “implement One Rank One Pension in a holistic manner so that large number of ex-servicemen can be benefitted” (Para 10.1)

[d] Commenting was not persuaded by the Government attempt to paint a “rosy picture about the pension given to the Armed Forces Personnel”. The Committee thought it was misleading and observed “If this is beneficial to them than why are the ex-servicemen are consistently demanding for One Rank One Pension Formula? Why they are agitated? They serve the nation with utmost devotion and selflessness but their demands are consistently being ignored, not by the heads of Armed Forces, but by the bureaucrats. It’s a typical example of bureaucratic apathy. (P 10 para 10.2)

[e] The Committee dismissed government ‘apathy’ and excuse for failing to implement OROP because civilian Government employee would make similar demands as “baseless apprehension”. (P 10 para 10.3) It noted that military and civilian terms and conditions of service are not comparable and ‘cannot be equated’: military conditions are ‘tougher and harsher’, there is greater risk to life and limb, stress and strain, transfers and dislocation, adverse family life, bleak career prospects, ‘undefined and unlimited working hours’, and the “Armed Forces are also subjected to Court Martial system”.(P 10 para 10.3)

[f] The Committee blamed “Governments’ apathetic attitude” to implementing OROP for forcing ‘defence personnel of our country’ from returning their service medals to the President of India. (P 10 para 10.4)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Wonder, silence, gratitude

one who is going upstream ......

SS24 - in search of the bull !

one who is going upstream ......

%d bloggers like this: