"Has the military ever had OROP in the past? If so, until when; and if not, why has it become necessary now?"
The question is relevant as well as pertinent, and therefore, it must be answered. It challenges the very foundation of our quest for justice. Consequently, I took out my papers and discovered that it is fairly well answered in the book which I wrote in 1988. Since the work was based on 'primary evidence' I take it that it shall be possible to substantiate it with cogent proof. I have, therefore, chosen to reproduce verbatim from page 95-96 of "Wages Down the Ages"
"In the case of officers, a 'standard service' concept was in vogue. Thus, as long as an officer had rendered the length of service given in the table below, he was entitled to a fixed amount of pension irrespective of his pay at the time of retirement. And if he served longer than that, no additional benefit was given to him.
This was done to induce an officer who was not promoted to leave service without having to stick on for earning a higher pension. In the case of PBOR the pension was based on the 'top of the scale' for each rank and pay group, which was, once again a figure. (Their weightage was a constant figure of five years, irrespective of rank, at that point of time) The point to note is that the pensions were not a percentage of the pay, though there was a loose linkage between the two"
As per my records, the above format existed from times immemorial and was in vogue right up to the time when the Third Pay commission was implemented. They then drew up a system of weightages ( Capt and below 09;Maj 08; Lt Col & Col 07; Brig and Lt Col-TS 05 and Gen officers 03) which are used even today. I can also say with some authority that all through the period when the rank based pensions were granted (We can now call it OROP) there was no quibbling over the issue of pensions. I dare the government to quote one single instance when any soldier went to the court on the pension issue during the above period, and indeed, demonstrations hunger strikes of the present kind were inconceivable. We have several second generation soldiers in our fold (I am one, myself) Does any one remember his father complaining about 'anomalies' in his pension before 1973?
The entire problem started when we began to enforce civilian formulae for regulating military pensions. The demise of OROP is the root cause of all evil. And the solution now lies in determining those simple rank based figures and applying the service condition in a rational manner. In my view, the salaries from 1.1.2006 to 1.9.2008 have been altering due to a number of factors. They are a sort of 'transients' However, by now the steady state has been achieved, and so all we need to do is to study the pattern of salaries admissible to soldiers at various ranks and arrive at appropriate figures. In my view, all that we need to do is to restore "staus quo ante" Go back on the time line, for answers and solutions.
I would be very glad to have comments from the members of our fraternity.
With best wishes for the forth coming Republic Day,
Maj Gen Surjit Singh
PS
Somewhere I read that, a bureaucrat is defined as a person who holds on to 'status quo' because it is safe to let the existing state of affairs to perpetuate. If, however, he loses 'quo', he clings on to 'status' for all he is worth!
No comments:
Post a Comment