Promises: One rank, One Pension now a distant dream

Fauji beat By Pritam Bhullar Sunday, January 10, 1999

STRANGE are the ways of the government (read bureaucrats) when it comes to giving a fair deal to soldiers. The bureaucrats do not get tired of proving it time and again that no legitimate benefits can be given to soldiers unless the former pocket them first.

On assuming office as Prime Minister in 1989, V.P. Singh said in his TV address to the nation that his government "stood committed" to "one rank, one pension" demand. The then President, R. Venkataraman, had also made a similar commitment in his TV address in December 1989. What followed thereafter was the appointment of "Jaffa Committee" which gave a bureaucratic burial to this demand.

Now as per the government notification issued in the third week of December 1998, the bureaucrats have given themselves what they have been denying to the soldiers all these years. The notification says that all Central Government pensioners, irrespective of their date of retirement, will get 50 per cent of the minimum pay introduced from January 1, 1996 as pension for the post held by them last.

The Defence Minister, George Fernandes, said on December 22 that "the long pending one rank, one pension issue is expected to be resolved soon". He also said that a Cabinet paper on the subject was ready and some discussions on the issue were awaited.

Are defence personal not Central Government employees? If they are, which of course they are, then why this tom-tom about "one rank, one pension" at this stage which has already been given to all Central Government employees?

However, the fact remains that our "destiny markers" (the bureaucrats) had to get the pay advantage first before giving it to the "faujis".
One rank, one pension blues

Issue of one rank, one pension
OVER a month ago — April 10, 1999 to be precise — Raksha Mantri George Fernandes made an announcement at Anandpur Sahib that the long-pending demand of the ex-sevicemen of one rank, one pension has been accepted and its implementation was now a “matter of only a few days”. Since then the implementation, I would like to believe, is progressing; how fast and intrinsic, I don’t know. Every now and then we read about the pending work that has to be cleared by the “caretaker government” but this subject is not mentioned. So let us draw our own conclusions from this. But that is why the ex-servicemen need media attention to “chevy up” things appropriately, for in the kingdom of babudom the ethos of “delay, deprive and deny” is an abiding factor.

The Tribune has a very, very large segment of our ex-servicemen community as its readers. But before I mention a few lines about the genesis of the matter, I must mention that on April 11 itself our AIR asked me to record a talk on this subject which was broadcast on the spotlight programme after the 9 p.m. English news bulletin. This was because I was one of the three petitioners in the pensioners case on which the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court delivered its historic judgement on December 17, 1982. I did mention to AIR that very few people now listen to AIR with TV being the craze for most people!

To quote a few lines from the Supreme Court judgement: “With a slight variation to suit the context, Wolsey’s prayer — “Had I served my God as reverently as I did my King, I would not have fallen on those days of penury” — I fall on the thorns of life, I bleed. Old age, ebbing mental and physical process, atrophy of both muscle and brain power permeating these petitions, the petitioners in the fall of life yearn for equality of treatment which is being meted out to those who are soon going to join and swell their own ranks.”

The judgement can be termed as a sort of magna carta for pensioners, for at the very end, the judges stated: “With the expanding horizons of socio-economic justice... and largely influenced by the fact that the old men, who retired when emoluments were comparatively low and are exposed to vagaries of continuously rising prices... we are satisfied that by introducing an arbitrary eligibility, being in service and retiring subsequent to the specified date, or being eligible for the regularised pension scheme and thereby dividing a homogeneous class, these classifications being not based on any discernible rational principle ... are unconstitutional and are struck down.”

The government thereafter filed a 75-page review petition which was rejected by a six-line order in April, 1983. The Secretary (Expenditure) was approached by the petitioners with the order. His Joint Secretary (Administration) reacted in a manner which is a manifestation of our supercilious bureaucracy at its eloquent best. He said: “We will go to Parliament and nullify this judgement.” They did not go to Parliament in a formal manner but have made sure that to this date the judgement has not been implemented — in thought, word and deed!

During this writer’s frequent rounds of the Supreme Court as one of the three petitioners, a story from the Mahabharata was related to the situation by a decorated World War II veteran, in his late seventies. Four Pandava brothers had drunk water from a pond without answering a set of questions despite being warned against doing so by a divine force. While the four brothers lay dead, the eldest of all, Yudhishthir undertook to answer the questions in return for the lives of his brothers. “Which is the most wonderful phenomenon?” asked the voice. “No man”, replied Yudhishthir, “though he sees others dying all around him, believes that he himself will also die.” The lives of his brothers were restored. The veteran then posed the question: “Will our babus, netas and Chiefs of Staff never retire or die?” To this one could add what Palmerstone once remarked: “Die, doctor? That’s the last thing I’ll ever do!”

The most important point to mention is that a mere announcement means very little. It has to be ensured that this acceptance is concretised by issuing government orders immediately so that former uniformed personnel receive their due pension and arrears within two months of the announcement — one month has already gone by and in the process (two months) nearly 10,000 ex-servicemen pensioners would have died; they form two-thirds of the central government pensioners. There are also the family pensioners and disabled pensioners who encounter a callous and cruel system in a more pronounced manner.

Ex-servicemen pensioners are entitled to be considered a little differently from civil pensioners for on the date of their entry into service they are enjoined to be ready to offer the supreme sacrifice for the nation — and which they happily do, in addition to coming to the aid of civil power so frequently when all else has failed. One would like to hope that those who have defended the basic integrity of the nation, and for many of whom life ebbs fast, are not disposed of with platitudes, for they are in no position to use coercive methods to get their demand accepted like many others do and so frequently.
Satyindra Singh
The author is a retired Rear Admiral, Indian Navy
Issue of one rank, one pension