IESM LETTER TO RM ON ONE RANK ONE PENSION ANOMALIES

IESM LETTER TO RM ON OROP ANOMALIES

21st January 2016

The Raksha Mantri

South Block, Ministry of Defence

New Delhi

Urgent Need to Rectify Anomalies in OROP

in Govt notification dated 7 Nov 15

Dear Shri Manohar Parrikar ji

Please refer to Govt executive letter dated 26 Feb 14, press release dated 5 Sep 15, Govt notification dated 7 Nov 15 and 14 Dec 15. Please also refer to the statement made by MOS Defense Sh Rao Inderjit Singh in Parliament on 2 Dec in reply to question asked by Sh Rajeev Chandrashekhar regarding implementation of OROP. (All attached)

One Rank One Pension was approved by UPA Govt in budget dated 17 Feb 14 and then by NDA Govt in their budget dated 10 Jun 14. UPA Government issued an executive order dated 26 Feb 14 for the implementation of OROP dues to veterans at the earliest. This was never implemented by the MOD nor a demand note was ever raised. The approved definition of OROP by two Governments is given below.

One Rank One Pension (OROP) implies that uniform pension be paid to the Armed Forces Personnel retiring in the same rankwith the same length of service irrespective of their date of retirement and any future enhancement in the rates of pension to beautomatically passed on to the past pensioners. This implies bridging the gap between the rate of pension of the current pensioners and the past pensioners, and also future enhancements in the rate of pension to be automatically passed on to the past pensioners.

OROP implies that a senior rank soldier should never draw pension less than his junior rank soldier. This cardinal principle is the soul of OROP and must never be violated.

Government issued a notification on 7 Nov 15 for implementing OROP. Government reiterated above-mentioned definition of OROP in the letter but introduced some conditions in the notification that completely destroy the definition approved by two parliaments. These conditions have created four anomalies which completely violates the definition and thereby, the soul of OROP. These anomalies are discussed in detail in succeeding paragraphs.

1) Fixation of Pension on calendar year of 2013 instead of FY of 2014: Fixation of pension as per calendar year 2013 would result in past retirees getting less pension of one increment than the soldier retiring today. This will result in past retirees drawing lesser pensions than present retirees. This will completely destroy definition of OROP approved by two Parliaments and will also result in loss of one increment across the board for past pensioners in perpetuity.

2) Fixation of pension as mean of Min and Max pension: Fixing pension as mean of Min and Max pension of 2013 would result in more anomalies wherein same ranks with same length of service will draw two or more different pensions thus violating the very principle of OROP. This issue was discussed with RM in various meetings and after due deliberations it was decided that accepting highest pension of each rank in the year would meet the requirement as base of pension.

3) Payment wef 1st Jul 14 instead of 1st Apr 14: OROP has been approved in budget of 2014-15 by two parliaments. As per norms of Government, all proposals approved in budget are applicable from 1st April of that FY. In the case of OROP, the Govt had issued specific orders to its applicability wef 1st April 14. Hence implementation date for OROP from 1st July will be against the Parliament approval. Changing the date would result in loss of 3 months emoluments for OROP across the board. However, if OROP implementation date is to be kept as 1st July, then the base pension should also be accepted as per the PPOs of July 2014.

4) Pension Equalisation every five year: Pension equalisation every five year will result in a senior rank soldier drawing lesser pension than a junior rank soldier for five years thus OROP definition will be violated for five years. This will also result in permanent violation of definition as fresh cases will come up every year.

These anomalies will result in lesser pensions to widows, soldiers, NCOs and JCOs than what will be due to them on approval of OROP. This will result in veterans not getting OROP as per approved definition and will create large discontentment across all ranks.

There is a need to have a relook at the pensions of Hon Nb Subedars, Majors and Lt Cols.

a) Some Havildars are granted rank of Hon Naib Subedar in view of their exemplary service. These soldiers are not granted pension of Naib Subedar thus making the Hon rank just ceremonial. It is requested that Hon Naib Subedars should get pension of a Naib Subedar rather than that of a Havildar. Similarly, this must be accepted as a principle and it should be applicable to all Hon ranks in case of NCOs and JCOs.

b) There are only a few Majors as veterans. Moreover no officer is retiring in Major rank now. In the past, officers were promoted to Major rank after completing 13 yrs of service whereas present officers are getting promotion of Lt Col in 13 yrs. It will be justified to grant all pensioners of the rank of Major, minimum pension of Lt Col as they cannot be compared to present retirees as officers are not retiring as Majors any more. Number of such affected officers is not more than 800 and will not cause heavy burden to Govt.

c) Similarly, all pre-2004 retiree Lt Cols should get the minimum pension of full Col. Presently all officers retire in the rank of Colonel hence all Lt Col equivalents should be granted min pension of Colonels.

In view of above you are requested to rectify these anomalies and issue addendum to notification issued on 7 Nov 15 for implementation of OROP. We strongly believe that there will be no requirement of judicial committee for attending to anomalies creeping up in implementation of OROP. Grant of increase in pension in case of honorary ranks and Majors and Lt Col must also be approved as a good will gesture.

This letter is being signed by three major organizations with the approval of more than 200 organizations. List of such organizations is attached.

sd/- Lt Gen Balbir Singh Chairman IESL Advisor UFESM

sd/- Col Inderjit Singh Chairman AIEWA Chairman IESM

sd/- Maj Gen Satbir Singh Chairman UFESM Advisor UFESM

Copy to:

Mr Arun Jaitley, Finance Minister, North Block, Finance Ministry, Government of India

Mr Jayant Sinha, MoS, Finance, North Block, Finance Ministry, Government of India

General Dalbir Singh, PVSM, UYSM, AVSM, VSM, ADC, Chief of Army Staff

Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha, PVSM, AVSM, VM, ADC, Chief of the Air Staff & Chairman Chiefs of Staffs Committee (CoSC)

Admiral RK Dhowan, PVSM, AVSM, YSM, ADC, Chief of Naval Staff

Source: http://ex-servicemenwelfare.blogspot.in/

Lack of vested right to effective judicial review from orders of the Armed Forces Tributnal (AFT): IESM

Lack of vested justify to effective judicial review from orders of the Armed Forces Tributnal (AFT): IESM letter to PM/RM/LAW MINISTER/COAS/CNS/CAS
Dated: 11 April 2015

Shri Narendra Modi
Hon’ble Prime Minister of India
Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)
New Delhi – 110 001

Shri Manohar Parrikar
Hon’ble Raksha Mantri
104, South Block,
New Delhi

Shri. D.V. Sadananda Gowda
Hon’ble Minister for Law & Justice
Room No. 401, A Wing,
4th Floor, Shastri Bhavan,
New Delhi – 110001

LACK OF VESTED justify OF EFFECTIVE JUDICIAL REVIEW FROM ORDERS OF THE ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL (AFT)

The Hon’ble Supreme Court on 11 March 2015 pronounced a decision in a case wherein it was held that orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) would not be challenged by litigants in Hon’ble High Courts but only in the Supreme Court. The judgement was passed on an appeal filed by the Ministry of Defence (and perhaps also the Army HQ) during the time of the last Government. We also have reasonable information to believe that one of the grounds raised by the MoD/Army in the appeal for denying the justify of judicial remedy like other citizens of India was that Fundamental justifys can be restricted/abrogated under Article 33 of the Constitution for defence personnel and hence a judicial remedy under writ jurisdiction of High Court would not be available. If it is true that this argument was raised by the MoD/Army, then it is the most unfortunate that the system itself is pleading for placing defence personnel on a lower pedestal than other citizens and pleading before the Hon’ble SC that the military community does not deserve the enjoyment of fundamental justifys like others. It is a well known fact that Article 33 only operates during performance of duties to maintain discipline and has no connection with justify to access of justice. It is also well known that the majority of cases in the AFT pertain to retired personnel, military widows and their families and hence Article 33 even otherwise has no applicability. This is also against the spirit of Article 39A of the Constitution which underlines equal justice for all citizens.

While in the beginning, there was an attempt to convince us that the decision will lead to ‘quicker’ justice to defence personnel, on closer and deeper examination of the issue, the following real facts and fallouts emerge:

1. There is actually no justify of appeal to the Supreme Court from AFT orders as per AFT Act since an appeal only lies in exceptional cases involving ‘point of law of general public importance’ vide Section 31 of AFT Act, hence what has been pleaded before the SC is that AFT should become the court of first instance as well as the court of last instance, leaving defence personnel, veterans and widows remediless since it is well known that 99.9% of cases can never involve ‘public importance’ questions. The decision will not lead to ‘quicker’ justice but in reality remove all chances and channels of challenge/appeal against AFT decisions. Can this bogey of ‘quicker’ justice be raised at the price of fundamental justifys of accessible justice and remedy to citizens?

2. It is well known that almost all such litigants cannot afford litigation in SC due to its prohibitive cost and the aura itself of being the highest court of the country. It is not understood how the defence ministry expects poor litigants including disabled soldiers and widows from all over the country to travel to Delhi and engage lawyers in SC to fight their cases. Most of the cases in the AFT involve issues such as disability benefits, pension, minor allowances, pay fixation, ACRs etc and litigants would now be expected to suffer in silence if they feel that they have not got justice from AFT.

3. Defence personnel, veterans, widows and families have been deprived of their basic justify of access to justice due to the plea raised by the MoD/Army wherein while all citizens of the country would have access to multiple tiers of justice, not even one tier would be available to us. Even civil govt employees aggrieved by orders of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) can approach the HC if they are dissatisfied and then further the SC, whereas similar access has been denied to us and after an order of the AFT even the SC cannot be approached as a matter of vested justify unless there is involvement of a point of general public importance.

4. We hereby express our dismay on the attempt of the official system to convey to the SC that fundamental justifys of the military community should be restricted or abrogated. We are disappointed that the system itself by raising the plea of Article 33 is attempting to prove that defence personnel, ex-servicemen and their families are lower than the ordinary person on the street. This will have disastrous consequences in the years to come. If the MoD/Army makes such averments pleading for taking away the fundamental justifys of their own members and former members and their families, then it is extremely unfortunate.

5. It is well known that the AFT functions under the control of the MoD and even Members of AFT are appointed by the MoD and selected by a selection committee which has the Defence Secretary as its member. AFT has also not been given civil contempt powers to ensure compliance of its orders. In other words, an ineffectual body has been created which functions under the MoD and then now on the plea of the MoD it has been assured that there is no effective appeal making it an all supreme body.

In light of the above, while expressing dissatisfaction at the stand and damaging stance of the MoD and the Army in the said case which has led to such a situation, we request you to kindly abrogate Sections 30 and 31 of the AFT Act so that AFT orders can be challenged on the lines of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) thereby making justice accessible and practical for defence personnel, ex-servicemen, widows and their families.

With regards,

Maj Gen Satbir Singh, SM (Retd)
Chairman IESM
Source: www.ex-servicemenwelfare.blogspot.in