From: raj kadyan rajkadyan@yahoo.com
Subject: ESM sitrep 09 Aug evening
Date: Sunday, 9 August, 2009, 11:06 PM
Dear Colleagues,
The Steering Committee met for three hours today to review, among others, IESM plans for future. The decision favours continuance of the struggle for OROP, in deference to the wishes of vast majority of ESM.
Yet another rally has meanwhile been scheduled for 16 Aug in southern Haryana.
In pursuance of the IESM agenda of taking a holistic view of ESM welfare, we have created the following two issue-specific cells to deal with the current problems:
1. Pension Cell – headed by Admiral Barin Ghose who carries vast experience of pay/pension related matters. He is a member of the IESM Steering committee.
2. ECHS Cell -
· Headed by Air Marshal (Dr) Kuldeep Rai. He is an experienced veteran associated with healthcare services for more than five decades.
· Brig Sateesh Kuthiala. A veteran with great acumen in management. Has been working independently for enhancement in ECHS services. Recently participated in an ECHS seminar in Chandimandir and circulated an extremely informative report through ‘Report My Signal’.
· Col RP Chaturvedi. IESM Coordinator.
Reproduced below is the article mentioned in 08 Aug sitrep, that I sent to various papers a few days ago. Hari Bhoomi that is widely read in the Hindi heartland has confirmed that they would be carrying it.
Quote
Ex Servicemen get a short shrift again
Inclusion of ‘one rank one pension’ in the Hon’ble President’s speech to the joint session of the Parliament on 4th June 2009 had rightly raised expectations. This is the first in the last twenty-five years this demand has received this kind of attention.
The government’s high powered committee to re-examine the issue was already in session. This committee (CabSec) headed by the Cabinet Secretary had six other top bureaucrats of the country – Secretaries of Home, Defence, Expenditure, Pensions & PW, DOPT and Ex-Servicemen Welfare. It was expected that the CabSec would come up with a fresh approach. Did the CabSec fulfil those expectations? The analysis of their 21-page report follows.
The CabSec refers to reports of various earlier committees and Groups of Ministers (GOM) that examined the issue in the past. Somehow, it only quotes from reports that did not favour grant of OROP. For example, the Parliamentary Committee report headed by Madan Lal Khurana had made a forceful case for OROP, going to the extent of saying that even if there was no precedent, it must be created now. This finds no mention in the CabSec report.
The CabSec has also quoted the SC judgment on a petition filed as a sequel to the decision of the SC in DS Nakara and Ors Vs Union of India. This has been cited to support CabSec contention against grant of OROP. However, they have made no mention of the recent 8.9.2008 SC judgement in Vains Vs Union of India case dealing with pensions of pre-1996 Maj Generals; it is suggestive of grant of OROP.
The CabSec quotes from the advice of the Law Ministry to the GOM in 2005. “The pensioners as a group consist of persons with different number of years of service and different average pay during the relevant period. If all of them are treated alike by providing same pension while ignoring their respective variations in length of service and average pay, that may amount to treating unequals as equals.” When we consider that the demand of OROP is based on seeking equation among pensioners of same rank and with same length of service this legal opinion becomes irrelevant. This advice might have been rendered in a contextually different situation.
The CabSec refers to a DO of 13 Mar 2009 from the Defence Minister to the Finance Minister on the subject of OROP, “While acceptance of the demand for grant of ‘One Rank One Pension’ is not feasible administratively...” The Defence Secretary who would have approved the draft of this DO was also sitting on the ibid CabSec. So much for unbiased opinion and impartiality on a subject crucially important to the two million Ex-Servicemen!
The CabSec further states that “Grant of OROP cannot be implemented for Ex Servicemen alone and demand for similar dispensation for civilian pensioners would also arise. This dispensation would then have to be extended to pensioners in autonomous bodies, Central and State Universities and Colleges and in all other institutions where the pension scheme is applicable. The financial implications for such a dispensation would then be substantial.” Taking cue from the aforesaid Law Ministry advice, the CabSec could have – and should have – also highlighted the stark differences in service conditions of military personnel vis-a-vis other government employees, and that the ‘unequals’ should not be treated as equals. But they did not, and surely not because of an oversight. The fiscal stick is the usual weapon for bureaucrats to beat the politicians with and is so much déjà vu. They inflate the scope of demand to an extent where its rejection is the only option left. Without doubt the same argument would have been used many times in the past, including when the free rations for officers were introduced in 1983. Luckily for the defence forces the then PM Indira Gandhi had the sagacity and strength to overrule the objections.
The Ex Servicemen are very much conscious that finances are a problem. They are agreeable to the expenditure on OROP being spread over more than one financial year if so required; they are more interested in having OROP accepted as a principle. With the allocation of money being made routinely for so many other schemes, the Ex Servicemen get an uneasy feeling that they do not figure anywhere on the list of government priorities.
Having (selectively) cited past findings and recommendations the CabSec then states, “In view of the factors mentioned above, it is not considered feasible to grant ‘One Rank One Pension’ for the following reasons: ....”
These reasons have been listed as:
1. Various committees have considered in the past and found no justification for OROP.
2. Successive pay commissions have not recommended it.
3. Acceptance of the OROP principle has substantial financial implications (8000 to 9000 Cr per annum).
4. Revision of pay scales at times accompanied with revision of educational qualifications/restructuring of cadres/duties attached to the post, the benefit of which need not be passed on to the past pensioners. (Not a new point; it is picked up from the V Pay Commission report).
5. The 1991 SC judgment found the OROP claim untenable.
6. Ministry of Law also opined that the same pension for the same rank is not an acceptable proposition.
7. The GOM in 2005-06 also did not recommend OROP.
The ‘following reasons’ are a mere summation of seven past selectively chosen reports/recommendations that the CabSec had already cited earlier in their report. Supporting the status quo is always the easiest course, requiring no application of mind. In the instant case it is rather sad. The government had constituted this high powered body and it was expected that with their long experience and breadth of vision they would examine the problem de novo and inject some fresh ideas. Instead, they merely produced a summary of past findings and used it as the basis for their recommendations. This could have been done even by the secretarial staff, with the Secretaries merely pinning their signatures. The report does little to dispel the nagging suspicion that the constitution of the committee, and the statements of two Hon’ble Cabinet Ministers in the Parliament conveying an impression that OROP had been granted, was a mere diversionary exercise, sans sincerity.
The pensions of past (pre-1.1.2006) retirees will surely get enhanced. The exact quantum of increase will be known only after the government orders are issued. However, they would not come at par with the post-1.1.2006 retirees. OROP has been denied. The Ex-Servicemen have now to take a call on what to do next.
Lt Gen Raj Kadyan (retd)
Chairman Indian EX Servicemen Movement
Unquote
.....
Best regards,
Lt Gen (Emeritus) Raj Kadyan, PVSM, AVSM, VSM
Chairman IESM
