Feel free to contribute on burning issues concerning the armed forces. Contributions would be acknowledged - Use the 'Comments' tab or email navdeepsingh.india[at]gmail.com. No operational/business/commercial matters to be discussed please. Legal advice/litigation related issues would strictly NOT be published or discussed or entertained. Information on this blog is opinion based and is neither official nor in the form of an advice. This is a pro bono online journal in public service related to issues, policies and benefits, and the idea behind it is to educate and not to create controversy or to incite. Be soft in your language, respect Copyrights.

Friday, January 7, 2011

Oh oh ! That is not what I meant.

A friend points out that the following from the last paragraph of my OPed is critical of the officers posted in manpower and personnel wings of the service(s) headquarters :

“...The malaise can only be addressed if the defence services start posting upcoming and brilliant officers in the service directorates dealing with manpower and personnel services who constructively provide their inputs to the process of decision-making and act as a counter-balance on elements who harbour an erroneous feeling that faujis are already getting more than they deserve”.

A single glance of the foregoing indeed (misleadingly) conveys as if the write-up pointed to the fact that the above mentioned wings are not being manned by optimal officers.

Well, that is not what I meant. What I meant was that key positions in these directorates are currently being looked after by non-military officers who do not have in-depth sensitivity of the requirements of the defence services and their families, and hence in lieu we need more military officers in these directorates (of course of the upcoming and brilliant kind :-) Whatever that means !!!) to counter-balance those who feel that defence personnel are already a coddled lot.

Touché!

31 comments:

Anonymous said...

well !
Issue is that enough is NOT being done by our ministry/ departments dealing with ESM.
Pending cases as simple as one dealing with publication of orders for modified/full parity on disability pensionary awarads on the lines of OM dated 30 Sep 10 ( for civilians) and the case of Rank pay are glaring examples of such apathy, as mentioned by Major Navdeep.
We as ESM , are NOT at all concerned,if the officers posted at service directorates dealing with manpower issues are brilliant and /or upcoming or not. What we pray the ALMIGHTY, that such officers perform their DUTIES JUSTFULLY and with a good SPEED.
May God be kind to our ESM and all Fauzees.

Anonymous said...

It is like the oppostion parties who try to twist every statement as if they are being malinged. We (ESM )want the type of indivuals, working to sort out our problems ,to be fully knowledgable regarding service conditions , rules and regulations. Which means our own personnel and not Babus whose only job is to some how put obstacles in clearing cases.The disability case is one of them. Even the Rank Pay case . (Less said The better ?)
They say "GOD SEES THE TRUTH BUT WAITS "Unfortunately in some rather many cases the wait is too long and too late.
Hope 2011 is the end of all waits!
GURDEEP SINGH
GROUP CAPTAIN (Retd )

Anonymous said...

Comments of a writer on conduct of medical examinations for ias officers.. makes interesting reading

'Pran jaye par kursi na jaye'

http://www.whispersinthecorridors.net/today.html#next204

B P SINGH said...

Dear Navdeep.
By chance I hit this site muslim2sikh.wordpress.com ,well it will of great help to mil/para mil officer (both Male/female) as in forces we give respect to all faiths.
BPSingh
(www.indiancpmf.blogspot.com)

Anonymous said...

Dear Navdeep,

Sometimes one gets an impression that if Armed Forces Leadership can not defend their organisational interests, how will they defend the country? By the way, attitudnally both are not very different.

The problem was and still remains that the govt has deployed too many to ensure that the soldiers do not bother for their administration. Their is CDA, MoD, Civilians in IHQs, Defence Estate walas, supporting Services, MES, State Goverment Organisations, etc etc employed to manage soldiers welfare.

However, the very people and organisations which are supposed to help out soldiers have become the biggest obtacles and predators hunting soldiers. Same goes true with respect to your observation for those who man so called Personnel Departments of the three services. They are irresponsive, ill informed and obtinatingly bureaucratic. Sometimes fault lying with leadership. Ask the DGMT or ARTRAC when and how they ever teach their officers the laws, rules and regulations governing the Armed Forces Personnels? The answer would be a fumble.

"Rakshaks" becoming "Bhakshak" is fully demonstrated by Adrash Society scam wherein every one had a dip in the name of martyres. The macro story is the same for all other affairs.

My suggestion. Make it mendatory for officers training at every level to learn Conditions of Service and Pensions. Cursory reading of Military Laws is not sufficient. Services have enough time, resources and wherewithal to teach their personnels on these aspects. Gone are the days when soldiers were considered to be protected. They are become major source for exploitation and career advancement for many, in fact more than required.

So far bureaucracy in the departments manning the personnel branches of the Service HQs is concerned, the less it is mentioned, the better. These are the most "Closed" and arrogant organisations within the services, specially those dealing with officers what to talk of soldiers.

Let the sweeping begun at home.

Anonymous said...

Navdeep sir,
As you know in army only these so called intelligents become COLs and GENs and how they behave with civilian counterparts if you want to know just try to interact with the IAS probationars who are supposed to be with army for 10 days. The amount of showbiz done in those 10 days will never leave a impression that army is being illtreated by indian Govt. More over all the COLs and GENs they speak only when they retire why can't they atleast discuss the issue while in service. Simply we can say Army officers are harming themselves.

sinha said...

can any body list out ten most important issues of armed forces without emotionally charged language and without abusing civilians babus et al .

Harry said...

@ Sinha

Sir, even though I am NO AUTHORITY on the subject let me attempt to answer you.Here are my TEN Points (not necessarily in that order)

1. Degradation of military ranks and associated rank/grade pay vis a vis other Govt services, i.e. NOT only AIS cadre but also Organised Group A Central Services.

2. No compensation for early forced retirement.

3. One Rank One Pension.

4. No lateral shift allowed in Govt jobs for those who leave early.

5. No representation of service officers in MoD, hence they are kept out of the decision making loop.

6. All verdicts (favouring Servicepersons & Veterans) of SC and various HCs being needlessly contested (on specious grounds) by Govt functionaries (non-servicepersons) thus denying and delaying the dues payable to servcepersons and veterans.

7. Non implementation of DACP for Military doctors and Non Functional Financial Upgradation for other Military officers.

8. Not doing enough to make the Military Service conditions attractive so as to attract and retain better quality of candidates in the Defence forces.

9. Not counting period of training in the service for defence forces' officers unlike all other civ Govt services.

10. Most Importantly, being UNGRATEFUL and INSENSITIVE,in general, to the sacrifices made by the members of the Armed forces for the national cause.(Remember this nation, after more than Six decades of independence, still does not have a national war memorial!! It happens only in 'Mera Bharat Mahan'.)


DO I need to say any more?

Anonymous said...

well said harry.

sinha said...

dear harry


1. Degradation of military ranks and associated rank/grade pay vis a vis other Govt services, i.e. NOT only AIS cadre but also Organised Group A Central Services.


govt already removed anomaly to a very large extent to the advantage of armed forces . any further upping of armed forces will disturb the balance .


2. No compensation for early forced retirement.


this was never an issue to best of my knowledge . pl elaborate

3. One Rank One Pension.

i think govt has already given its final orders on this issue .probably if this is implemented in full in armed forces the same has also to be applied in civil cervices . i think govt cant bear the enormous cost .

4. No lateral shift allowed in Govt jobs for those who leave early.

why this should be allowed . such shift is never allowed among different services.

5. No representation of service officers in MoD, hence they are kept out of the decision making loop.


yes this can be done but i doubt this will of much help

6. All verdicts (favouring Servicepersons & Veterans) of SC and various HCs being needlessly contested (on specious grounds) by Govt functionaries (non-servicepersons) thus denying and delaying the dues payable to servcepersons and veterans.

all verdicts of court r binding on gove sooner or later govt has to accept . just wait .

7. Non implementation of DACP for Military doctors and Non Functional Financial Upgradation for other Military officers.

who has stopped DACP for military doctors .


Non functional upgradation was never a demand of armed forces . promotion up to LT col is time bound with any selection board .where as all criteria of promotion i.ie. ACR and other conditions has to met in NFSU , so if r u ready to fullfill similar conditions in army .
i mean service conditions for each service r diiferent . barring very few gp A services in most of GP A services one take 17 - 18 years to reach Grade pay of 7600.

8. Not doing enough to make the Military Service conditions attractive so as to attract and retain better quality of candidates in the Defence forces

this is a very big issue having so many aspects . all discussion here is to better service conditions of armed forces .pl elaborate ur views on the subject .

9. Not counting period of training in the service for defence forces' officers unlike all other civ Govt service
i find no reason for govt not to accept it .

10. Most Importantly, being UNGRATEFUL and INSENSITIVE,in general, to the sacrifices made by the members of the Armed forces for the national cause.(Remember this nation, after more than Six decades of independence, still does not have a national war memorial!! It happens only in 'Mera Bharat Mahan'.)

this is only an emotional issue . so many war memorials r already everywhere . even for small wars there r memorials . i dont think if service chiefs take up this issue govt shall refuse .

Anonymous said...

http://www.gconnect.in/orders-in-brief/non-functional-upgradation-for-officers-of-organized-group-a-services-in-pb-3-and-pb-4.html

Sinha sir
kindly open the website www.gconnect.in or the address give above which clearly shows that director for 1996 batch which means director for 1994 for all other group A service and director means grade pay of 8700.
Now Sinha sir it seems you do'nt have your facts clear
And also in army less than 1 percent mean LT Gens only reach in HAG scale which is much much less than other services

Harry said...

@ Sinha

Point No 1 - Degradation of Military Ranks

Pls read Maj Navdeep's older posts (search with label Grade Pay) and then you will realise how Armed Forces have been shortchanged over a long period of time. Putting Lt Cols in Pay Band 4 with Grade Pay of 8000 (hardly a resolution of anomaly as far as Grade Pay issue is concerned as nobody on the civil side has this Grade Pay anyway, so what has changed?) was ONLY an INTERIM measure as Govt had announced setting up of High Level Committee(HLC) post protest by Service Chiefs (as if the committee comprising of RM,FM and EAM was NOT HIGH ENOUGH!!) So where's that HLC and its recommendations?

Point No 2 - Early Retirement

Retirement age for civil Govt employees is 60 years whereas in Military it is based on Rank. Jawans retire at 35 and more than 90% officers retire at 54 years to keep the profile of forces younger. So who is to compensate for forced early retirement?

Point No 3- OROP

NOT implemented by Govt! Its NOT Applicable to civilians as they retire by age (60 years) and not rank! So where is the question of civilians demanding it? It's just an excuse to not implement it.Read more about OROP here http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dgf9kk6h_35ck26x9c5

Point No 4 - Lateral Shift

Which govt service releases its officers and men at 5/10/14/15 years of service? FYI, it is only Defence Forces. BTW it makes economic sense as the Govt does not need to enrol new people and waste already trained manpower and pay them pensions. Read report of 6th CPC on lateral shift and then you would understand it better.

Point No 5 - Posting of Service Officers in MoD

It will make a SUBSTANTIAL difference, believe me!

Point No 6 - Govt contesting verdicts of SC and HCs favoring serviceperson & veterans

On one hand law minister says that there are more than 3 Crore cases pending in various courts and here we have Govt ministries/agencies clogging the courts with needless appeals and SLPs (even though more than 90% are dismissed by the courts!) Cases keep lingering on for decades needlessly and by the time decision comes many beneficiaries are no longer alive! Just take one example of Rank Pay case. Its arrears are due since..hold your breath.. 4th CPC!!Read more about Rank Pay case at this website http://rdoaindia.blogspot.com/

Point No 7 - DACP & NFFU for Armed Forces' Officers

If anyone requires NFFU the most its Military officers where promotions are NOT only too slow but vacancies are disproportionally low!! (Remember JS in 19-20 years with 100% promotion and Maj Gen, so-called JS equivalent, in 32 years with NOT even 4% of a batch making it!) Is it fair by any standard?
FYI 13 years is NOT the only criterion for Lt Cols rank, in addition, one has to pass two promotion exams for it and also has to be medically fit for the same.

Point No 8 - Military as a career

Over a period of time policies of the govt have made this career as least attractive for better quality of candidates. The point is again related to degradation of military ranks. As a result there are more than 12,000 vacancies lying unfulfilled in the officer cadre of Defence Forces. So who does the job of these 12,000 officers, obviously, the ones who are already there! And BTW only military officers are disallowed to put in their papers and leave even if they want to. Talk of bonded labour in this day and age, it very must exists in Indian Military :(

Point No 9 - Military training as Service

Good you have conceded it, wish Govt did the same too!

Point No 10 - War Memorial

You must be naive to assume that Service chiefs have NOT projected it! Just goes to show the APATHETIC & UNGRATEFUL attitude of the Govt!

PS: Fellow bloggers are most welcome to participate.

Penmil said...

Dear Harry @January 8, 2011 10:03 PM........ and Sinha@January 9, 2011 9:05 PM.
I would add two more issues to the list compiled by Harry.
11. Not removing the arteficial time barriers for extending the benefits to Veterans across the 6th CPC implimentation date, 01 Jan 2006.
This includes , notably the non implimentaion of Broad Banding of Disability Pension Benefits and( non) Grant of Diability Pension on a percentage(last pay drawn) basis, to Veterans of Pre 2006 vintage.
12. Not extending, automatically/suo moto, the revised pension benefits to widows and family pensioners.
For example, the family pensions of PBORs are not revised to conform with the revised pensions at PCDA(P) Circular No. 430, on the plea that the Committee of Secretaries did not include/consider that revision in their Report !

Sinha@January 9, 2011 9:05 PM.
It is interesting to read your views on the perceived issues of service men as well as the veterans. May be this is how the government / MOD too looks at these issues.

sinha said...

one rank one pension issue
dear harry
as i understand one rank one pension means for example if a col retired in say 1990 and another one retire in 2010, both should get same pension am i correct

similarly if a dir retire in 1990 and another retire in 2010 , they should get the same pension , but they do not get the same pension ,

so govt has considered the issue and introduced limeted concept on one rank one pension ,

so the principle has to be applied equally on both to armed forces and civilians ,
this is the main reason govt has not accepted the demand so far ,

pl mind it i am just an onlooker not a rep or spokesman of govt or civilians or armed forces
regards
sinha

Harry said...

@ Sinha

Sorry to say that you have NOT understood the essence of OROP even though theoretically you are correct.
100 % AIS cadre rises to the rank of JS (and equivalent) and above and nearly every IAS officer retires as minimum Additional Secy to GoI (HAG+)and most go on to be the Secys to GoI(Apex Grade with 'fixed' salary so,de facto, OROP is assured). Judges have it, so do our 'worthy' MsP (MPs is incorrect abbreviation. Do you know MsP get pension even if they 'serve' (I'm sure you will agree that we are much better off without the service of many of our such worthies) for even 3 years, forget the whole term! Which Govt service gives you pension in 3 years? Just because MsP decide their own salaries they can make any rule favouring them?
Incidentally the example of Director you gave is interesting because NO AIS cadre officer retires as Director (only promotees do)! And BTW more than 80% of Defence Officers (so-called Class I Gazetted 'COMMISSIONED' officers) don't even reach the rank of Selection Grade full Colonel (and go home at 54 years of age). So much for the 'NOBLE' profession of arms!
BTW cadre strength of less than 5000 IAS has cornered about 250 vacancies of Secys whereas Cadre strength of Defence Forces is about 56,000 and Secy equivalent vacancies are just....20 (Twenty only)!!
On top of this you are 'expected' to make Supreme sacrifice for the nation when required.

What a Joke!!

Penmil said...

Sinha @ January 10, 2011 7:48 PM said
"so the principle has to be applied equally on both to armed forces and civilians ,
this is the main reason govt has not accepted the demand so far"

This had never been the position and cannot be used as an argument against grant of OROP to the military.

The pension scheme/system for the military had been /is/ and will be different for the military from that of civil services.

In the present and in the future.
Post 5th CPC, the entrants to civil services are not entitled to pension.They have a contributory provident fund shceme.
The military, on the other hand has a pension scheme even after the 5th and 6th CPC.
What applies to military in future and present will not apply to the civil services.

In the past.
The military had one rank one pension, till it had been brought into civil type of pensions.
Even when the military was brought into civil system of pension scheme, the military pension was always rank based and not completely 'last pay drawn' based.
There are weightages granted, based on the rank at which one is pensioned off, in the military.
This weithage based on rank made the principles applied to military pensions different from the civil pension schemes.
Since the civil pensions were based on the 'last pay drawn' ( not on the grade at which one was pensioned off), the grade at which one retired disappeared after one's retirement.(Its only recently, HAG and higher civil ranks are granted pensions based on grade, but that is as an extension of military principle to civil)
But the rank at which a military pensioner retired, continued to affect him/her even after one's death, since family pensions also had same princples applied to them !

Thus,while there will be no civil pensioners after some time, military pensions will continue to be there and those pensions will be based on the rank at retirement(with or without a weightage).

If they are based on rank then what argument can be advanced to make it different for rank holders of different vintages?

sinha said...

ttp://www.gconnect.in/orders-in-brief/non-functional-upgradation-for-officers-of-organized-group-a-services-in-pb-3-and-pb-4.html

Sinha sir
kindly open the website www.gconnect.in or the address give above which clearly shows that director for 1996 batch which means director for 1994 for all other group A service and director means grade pay of 8700.
Now Sinha sir it seems you do'nt have your facts clear
And also in army less than 1 percent mean LT Gens only reach in HAG scale which is much much less than other services


my dear friend in this letter dir of 1994 actually means that any officer who was appointed in 1994 or ealier but not yet made to the post of dir will get pay of DIR .
it does not mean that all officers recruited in 1994 have become dir . in fact in most of services officers of 1990 have not become dir so far .that is why the need has arisen for isuuse of non functional upgradation .

if u meean something else please elaborate . thanks

sinha

sinha said...

@penmill
u writing sound interesting .
pl elaborate since when there is a change in military pension system .i.e. up till which period the pension of equal ranks was same irrespective of date of retirement and last pay drawn .

pl also elaborate why this should not be extended to civillians .

after all if a clerk retired in 1990 need the same amount of money for living as a clerk retired in 2011 .
sinha

Harry said...

@ Sinha

Well.. even after detailed elaboration and reasoning you still insist on more, that is quite bizarre!

Anyway here is some more for you:-

What age does a clerk retire in civil? 60 Years, right? In Defence Forces (DF) a clerk retires between 40 and 50 years depending upon his rank last achieved! How can you equate the two by any sense of reasoning? A person who serves till 60 will have more annual increments as compared to the one in DF (between 10 to 20 years) and thus more last pay drawn as compared to his DF counterpart. Not to mention the agony of DF clerk who has to fend for himself after he is forced into retirement at a time when his family obligations are yet to be fulfilled and all this while he has been serving he is getting transferred every 2 years or so with no settled family life unlike the one in civil Govt service.
Mind you here I am deliberately NOT bringing up other sources of income for civil Govt Clerk!!
The crux is even if we assume average life expectancy to be 70 years (which is quite high, you would agree) civil Clerk would see on an average 1 pay commission after retirement (so his pension is not going to fall behind much after pay revision) however Army clerk would see 2 to 3 Pay commissions after his retirement and therefore his pension is going to lag behind SIGNIFICANTLY.

Hope this elaboration suffices.

Now over to you!

Anonymous said...

@Sinha
January 11, 2011 8:59 PM

Why do not you apply the logic positively rather than negetively?

Considering you know the concept and need of pension (honorable survival), any one who retired in 1980 needs same amount of money to have honourable survival today as one who is retiring in 2010.

You mean to say the living conditions, inflations, prices and needs are different for those two different people.

Your equatting the pensioners of civil side with the pensioners of the Armed Forces is also illogical.

Do both sides serve under the same conditions of Service?
Do both sides have same retiring age?
Does a Fauzi ammas the same black money as a poen in PWD or MCD office?

Does a service man has same quality of life during service as his civilian counterpart?

Would one have the same oppurtunities to discharge his human and social obligations being a Servicemen and LDC?


After all, pension is a Compensation for "Services Rendered" and not NAREGA scheme.

It appears Mr Sinha's thought process is centered around Politics rather than on sound economic premises of Compensation. If one is a little aware of HR fundamentals, such questions as raised by Mr Sinha would be useless.

Fundamenatlly, What Mr Sinha is asking and exhibiting is the culture polical and populist malice the Govt servants in Civil socity in India go through. No work all pay. Rampant corruption, Unionism of negetive sort, all politics and no work etc etc.

And hence why should a civilian pensioner ask for OROP if their conditions of service were different?

Any answer Mr Sinha or you think pension is Khairat? Are you aware of SC rulings on the subject?

Anonymous said...

Mr Sinha,

It would be better for you to study following:
(http://india.gov.in/govt/cpc_studies.php#head3)

Many Interesting issues before one proceeds further:

Is not it true that The govt has introduced various forms of pension schemes for the Civilian employees? Govt intends to reduce this burdon and make the pension as self financing effort.

Is not it true that govt would continue to have "Defense pension liablity" as Defense pensions is a seperate issue not comparable with civilian side?

Is not it true that Defense pension liability has tremendiously declined as percentage of GDP?

Is not it true that govt liability towards Civilian employee pension has seen a rise of thousand fold in terms of real value and percentage of GDP?

Why are you treating Defense pension eqatting it with Civilian Employ's pension? Are not these two different and incomparable issues?

wish to outsources "Defense" as is being done for most of the deptts?


you are only theoretical and ill informed.

sinha said...

this is reference to previous enteries . i highy respect the emotions attached with any issues related with armed forces .
i simply want to clarify as some one pointed our that OROP scheme was in force at some time for armed forces . till when it was in force and why this discontinued .

sinha

Anonymous said...

Mr Sinha,

The issue is not whether OROP ever existed or not?

The issue is that it is a legitimate rational demand, accepted so by the Parliament as as by the previous govts..

Look it is 50 per cent of the last Pay drawn..

For that the weight-age for the Defence personnels was 100 per cent which was reduced to 60 per cent by the pay commission but now restored to 100 per cent wight-age for Defence and PMF have also swum into int it thanks to Susma Nath..

Now the provisions for post 84 retirees that that 50 percent of the basic pay pf the rank plus grade pay etc would be the basic pension...

But why not the same provision for pre 84 retirees..

Mr Sinha must understand that the life expectancy now has increased beyond 60 years. and there are many retired personal surviving who had retired before 1984.

OK, let me take it this way - an officer of Colonel's rank retiring at 54 years of age before 1984 today would be of 70 years of age. He would further survive for ten odd years.

He needs more money at this stage to have (Honorable Survival", buy vegetables and grocery. What is wrong in giving him a little more money. The percentage of colonels surviving at 70 would be only 60 percent (maximum). That means the enhanced financial Bordon is pea nut.

Similarly, look at an NCO who retired at 37 years of age in 1984 and drawing pension from 37 years of age to about 80 years..

Just see this enormous loss to the exchequor..

That is why parallel shift was recommended...

Why can not a Clerk of the Army who retires at 40 years be absorbed in govt deptts? He would be drawing pension at 50 per cent of the pay whereas the govt employee a clerk at full pay? Why can not the govt shift this person as a clerk into civil side , allow him to serve till 60 years and save 50 per cent of the Pay which otherwise is payable to him as pension?

Parallel shift into CPMF and other agencies was meant to save this huge pension liability and provide gainful employment.. Since he was recruited as govt employee it is financially gainful to continue with the same man with half the Pay? I hoe you understand that..

Employment is the govt target and main issue in a welfare society and not "Govt Employment". There is difference between the two.

Pension benefits is also a major concern of the Govt. Therefore, it makes provisions in labour laws toward that end. New pension Schemes are also part of that.

However, the Govt can not starve their genuine pensioners who they exploited in their youth and threw them off with pensions without providing them opportunities to serve till 60 years like others.

In principle, govt can not and should not have double standards.

I hope you will appreciate that.

Anonymous said...

Pray that some officers who are dealing these subjects also read comments posted here.
At least , defense personnel and pensioners need to be treated at par with civilian employees, if not better....
and why should we ask for better treatment ? we chose this profession.
For almost equal treatment;Either the government MUST not retire the defense personnel at lower ages or MUST pay upto the normal age of retirement for civilian employees.
Defense pensioners ( pre 1-1-06 retirees) are still waiting for orders for disability pension on percentage basis. Any logic / reasoning for such a long delay ?
Rank pay issue is pending inspite of SC orders ?
Any defense babu, who has his son/daughter in uniformed defense services will equally appreciate ; but somehow, as pointed out by Maj Navdeep, most of them are totally insensitive to our genuine rights.
Hope we will take care of our FAUZEES.

Penmil said...

Sinha@January 11, 2011 8:59 PM,
The point was,a request not to juxtapose the demand for OROP by the military, with the pension demands of Civil Servies.They have their own right to demand the equivalent of OROP, if they so desire.
Prior to bringing the military into the civil system of pensionary benefits, that is Prior to 3rd CPC( or earlier), the military pensions were rank based and not based on 'Last Pay Drawn', as it was/is in the Civil Servises.
A mention was made to the existence of 'Rank Based Pensions' in the presentation, to the Secy. Dept of Ex Servicemen's Welfare, on OROP, by the IESL.
As a remider to that 'Rank based' Principle, the Disability Element of Disability Pension continues to be rank based even now.(The linking of a rank with pension
still continues.

sinha said...

please have a look at following links
regarding OROP

http://afa-india.org/downloads/OROP.pdf

http://gavinijottings.blogspot.com/2009/09/detailed-analysis-of-cos-committee.html

sinha

Harry said...

@ Sinha

The links you have posted are well known to most of the servicepersons & veterans. Thanks for those all the same. These will further benefit the uninitiated.

But what do YOU have to say now? Put us wise pls

sinha said...

dear harry
i want to say that major hurdle in accepting OROP is likely demand by civilians . pl refer report of cab secy .
secondly OROP has been considered ample times and not fully accepted .however govt already implemented it to a very lage extent in case of PBOR and to some extent in case of officers .

even pay commission not accepted it
supreme court also not accepted it .

after all govt of a sovereign nation has a right to have some stand .

it is logical to demand OROP in some form by civilians after all they are also human beings .
. why u are allergic to this idea , how this harm armed forces .
any way this debate is endless let us leave topic here .
sinha

Anonymous said...

it is logical to demand OROP in some form by civilians after all they are also human beings .
. why u are allergic to this idea , how this harm armed forces .


Sinha Saheb,

You have now spilled the beans by putting the fundamentals of compensation and pension on its head down.

So you think that the issue of pension is a Humaniterian issue like NAREGA with political ends?

And it is a political issue in which civilians want all bebefits of Defence without being ones?

At another level you wish to scuttle this important issue by introducing a political factor "Civians will also demand"..

Is it an issue of Civilian Vs Military?

No, it is being made out so..

Hence, please end your illogical and prejudicial arguments

Anonymous said...

Mr sinha used the phrase "sovereign nation"...

Is not Defense Services part of that sovereignity?

Who constitutes that "soverignity"..

Is the Govt and Civil Services higher than "State Soverignity.."?

Is "bureaucracy" the "Leviathan"..?

In democracy, the "men in chains" having entered the contract are Leviathan.. Peples representatives are leviathn and not servants..

toughest chains are borne by the Defecence personnel.

I hope that ends your political philosophy !!

Penmil said...

Sinha @January 13, 2011 6:23 PM.
You wrote "supreme court also not accepted it ".
Please see,PCDA(P) Circular No. 01 at www.pcdapension.nic.in.
OFFICE OF THE PCDA (PENSIONS), DRAUPADI GHAT ALLAHABAD
Circular No. 01 Dated: - 21.07.2009,
This circular refers to Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgement dated 9.9.2008 in SLP No. 12357/2006
filed by UOI Vs Maj. Gen. S.P.S. Vains (Retd) and others.
This is the latest of the Honourable SC's Judgements in a case pertaining to the equation of pension of retirees across the time line of a Pay Commission.