From: raj kadyan rajkadyan@yahoo.com
Subject: ESM SITREP 22 MAR EVENING
To: kamboj_cs@yahoo.co.in, TRUNCATED ,
Date: Tuesday, 23 March, 2010, 6:25 AM
Dear Colleagues,
The IESM continues to describe OROP as equal rank, equal length of service, equal pension. There has been some view circulated where service in last rank is suggested as the criterion. This has been voiced many times in the past and has some merit. However, it also has an implication. An illustration may be relevant.
The select promotions for officers in our Army are not uniform for all Arms and Services. I recall in mid Seventies our BM (An Arty officer who rose to become Army Commander) was senior in service to all the three Infantry COs. Yet he was a Major because promotions in the Infantry were much faster than in Arty. Hypothetically speaking, if they were all to retire as Lt Cols, the Arty officer would have spent much shorter time in the rank of Lt Col and if service in the rank held were the criterion for OROP, he would stand to lose for no fault of his.
It also needs to be noted that the differing connotation is only applicable to officers since we all retire by age. It has no relevance to JCOs and Other Ranks who form the vast majority of pensioners; they all retire by length of service.
The definition chosen by IESM for pursuit of OROP is not perfect, as no definition would be. But it has more universal applicability. We should not change simply because it is presumed to be more difficult to implement.
Best regards,
Lt Gen (Emeritus) Raj Kadyan, PVSM, AVSM, VSM,
Chairman IESM
262, Sector-17A, Gurgaon- 122 001
Tele: 91+124-4015262
+919811226676
