AN EX-SAINIK'S CLOSE LOOK AT THE CoS REPORT : IMPORTANT DATA/INTERESTING FACTS REVEALED

1.        Knowing well and fully aware that the CoS Report of 30.6.09 is pasted on the blog's "Other Links", the following highlighted view points of an EX SAINIK, is posted for the benefit of information of all Veteran Brothers:-

---------------------------------------------------------------------

     That the CoS consisted of Secretary, ESM Welfare, Secretary, DOPT, Secretary, Pens&Pens Wel, Secretary Expenditure, Home Secretary, Defence Secretary and headed by the Cabinet Secretary.

     That the OROP implied by them as " that UNIFORM PENSION BE PAID TO THE ARMED FORCES PENSIONERS RETIRING IN THE SAME RANK WITH THE SAME LENGTH OF SERVICE, IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR DATE OF RETIREMENT,

 AND, ANY FUTURE ENHANCEMENTS IN THE RATES OF PENSION BE AUTOMATICALLY PASSED ON TO THE PAST PENSIONERS."

       That the demand for grant of OROP was considered by the Govt. a number of times in the past. In 1980-81(29 years ago), The Estimates Committee on Resettlement of ESM noted the DISPARITY IN PENSION between past and present Pensioners of equal rank was INEQUITABLE and a JUST SOLUTION be found to END THIS DISPARITY.

        That, in 1984, the High Level Empowered Committee on the Problems of ESM headed by Shri KP Singh Deo, the then RRM, recommended that the 4th CPC may consider the issue particularly in the light of the PRINCIPLE ESTABLISHED  regarding the PENSION OF JUDGES OF SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURTS.

        That the 4th CPC stated that the amount of pension UNDERGOES CHANGES AS AND WHEN PAY SCALES ARE REVISED and any attempt to equivalise pension w.r.t. the Revised Scales of Pay would amount to RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION OF PAY SCALES.

        Subsequently,in 1991,  another High Level Empowered Committee chaired by the then RM, Shri Sharad Pawar, while rejecting OROP demand, had observed  that the TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE of Armed Forces Personnel were DISTINCT and as such a SPECIAL DISPENSATION for them was required. Based on this, grant of a ONE TIME INCREASE (OTI) was recommended and GRANTED.

        That the 5th CPC nearly granted the pensions by bridging the gap inthe pensions of Pre and Post 1.1.86 and upgraded to the levels of 1.1.96 pensioners.

        That in 2003, an Inter Ministerial Committee on OROP submitted report on 29.4.04 recommending Modified Parity based on the Maximum of the Revised Scales of pay introduced w.e.f.1.1.96 but was rejected by the Ministry of Finance.

       That in Jan 2005, the PM ordered a GoM Committee to look into the issue which recommended that THERE WAS JUSTIFICATION FOR IMPROVING THE PENSION BENEFITS OF ORS, PARTICULARLY THE THREE LOWEST RANKS, and  unanimously recommended that the PENSIONS OF PRE 1.1.96 Pensioners may be revised w.r.t. Maximum of Pay Scale of Post 96 Pay Scales. In addition, weightage of 10,8 and 6 years be given to lower 3 ranks. And the benefit was given effect w.e.f.1.1.2006.

       That the 6th CPC stated that the 5th CPC had already granted full parity between pre and post 1.1.86 and a modified parity between pre and post 1.1.96 pensioners, no change is proposed in the existing dispensation. Hence extant provisions may continue.

    That the CoS had heavily relied for NOT ACCEDING TO THE DEMAND OF OROP on the information provided in paras 2.11 (SC Judgement), 2.12(View of Min of Law and Justice), 2.13(second view of Min of Law & Just), 2.14 (Mod persistant view that A STONG CASE DEFINITELY EXISTS for bringing the QUANTUM OF PENSION of Pre 96/10.10.97 Pensioners AT PAR WITH Post 1.1.96/ 10.10.97 and the Pre 1.1.96 pensions as the gap between the pensions of the past and present retirees has WIDENED after implementation of 6th CPC, AND

     THAT the Grant of OROP CANNOT BE IMPLEMENTED for ESM alone and a DEMAND for similar DISPENSATION WOULD ALSO ARISE from pensioners of AUTONOMOUS BODIES, Central/StateUNIVERSITIES/COLLEGES and in ALL OTHER INSTITUTIONS WHERE THE PENSION SCHEME IS APPLICABLE.

       AND the financial implications would then be substantial.

       AND THAT BY SUMMING UP IN PARA 3, THEY HAVE REJECTED THE OROP.

        AND RECOMMENDED THE FOLLOWING:-

        TO RECKON THE PENSION OF ALL PRE-1.1.06 PENSIONERS WITH REFERENCE TO A NOTIONAL MAXIMUM IN THE POST 1.1.2006 REVISED PAY STRUCTURE CORRESPONDING TO THE MAXIMUM OF PRE-SIXTH PC PAY SCALES AS PER FITMENT TABLE OF EACH RANK

        AND ALSO TO CONTINUE WEIGHTAGE OF 10,8 AND 6 YEARS TO LOWER 3 RANKS.

       And most SURPRISINGLY,  in Para 9 of the Report,

       That the FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS, on account of ARREARS (totalling 9 a)Rs.7.73+b)Rs.4.83+c)Rs.25.00 cr= Rs.37.56 cr) was (ERRONEOUSLY?) shown as Rs.164.5 cr.

       VETERAN BROTHERS, imagine, HOW difficult it was to CoS to reject the OROP demand of ESM !

        BUT, WAIT, WITH THE SAME SET OF REASONS AND JUSTIFICATIONS, IT COULD HAVE BEEN MUCH EASIER FOR THE CoS TO ACCEPT AND GRANT THE OROP!!

        AND MADE THE ENTIRE ESM COMMUNITY A HAPPY LOT !!!

        IS THAT RIGHT !!!!!??????????
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OROP RECHRISTINED AS AVPD (ARMED FORCES VETERANS' PENSION DEMAND)

       Maj Gen RN Radhakrishnan (Retd), in his detailed analysis of CoS Report (To see the full report,  CLICK HERE ) had  re-christined the OROP as Armed Forces Veterans' Pension Demand (AVPD) and summarised the same as below:-

“Let the pay of all pensioners of the Armed Forces be notionally fixed at the rate given to similar officers of the same rank and same length of service after the revision of pay scales with effect from 1.1.2006, and, thereafter, their pension benefits be computed on such basis as applicable to those retiring after the date of implementation with prospective effect from the same date of implementation.

Permit the pensioners to draw an annual increment at the rate applicable to the serving personnel, such that the disparity, if any, that arises due to such increment to the serving personnel, can be set right.

Let a suitable element of compensation, in addition, be allowed for the truncation of service before the age of superannuation permissible for any employee as a matter of right.”        

-------------------------------------------------------------------