OROP clarification
From: raj kadyan (rajkadyan@yahoo.com)
Sent: 30 June 2009 10:05AM
To: avmrpm@gmail.com
Cc: skbahri1@yahoo.com
Dear Air Marshal Mishra,
There appears to be a communication gap. Allow me to point out a few clarifications.
It has been the IESM consistent stand that OROP is a demand for equation of old pensioners with the present ones. Since the benchmark for the latter already exists, it can have only one figure and there is no need for any tables. Admiral Ghose, with his experience of Pay Commissions, keeps educating our Steering Committee with various data. However, he could not have sent you an ‘IESM table’. Your reference to a table as the IESM table "( based on a paper written by Vice Admiral Ghose on behalf of IESM forwarded to us by an ESM)" does not match with facts. The very mention by you that you received it from an ESM points to its lack of authenticity.
Since IESM have been conceptually against tables, your contention that I supported a particular table or set of figures by saying "Lt General Kadyan insisted that the Tables proposed by IESM, (which are less beneficial to pensioners)", are more logical needs correcting. OROP means equating the past pensions with the present, and cannot have higher or lower figures.
I am quoting below my sitrep dated 03 Jun 09:
The grapevine has it that the government is wanting to grant a one-time parity instead of OROP as a principle. To legitimise their escape route they are reportedly looking for some ESM willing to endorse it to give their action a façade of acceptability by the ESM community.
As would be seen I had no idea that a committee had already been formed and what was its composition. My remark was directed at the government and not at any of the esteemed colleagues. I had even clarified it to you when you mentioned it during our 15 June meeting. However, in your email ibid you have misquoted me to say:
I mentioned to Lt General Kadyan that he had mentioned in one of his sitreps that ex-service members of the Committee formed by MoD are pliable and may agree to whatever Mod decides.
Your changing the text conveys a meaning other than intended.
While on the subject, you may wish to clarify whether in your presentation to the Cabinet Secretary’s Committee, only one table table was presented or were there four different sets of figures given out? If it was the latter, then you will agree, what was being sought was Committee’s approval of the lowest of these four sets of figures, which some would construe as a compromise.
Best regards,
Lt Gen (Emeritus) Raj Kadyan, PVSM, AVSM, VSM
Chairman IESM
