OROP Status: Chairman's Desk

Date: Saturday, 8 August, 2009, 10:27 PM
Dear Colleagues,
It is after a gap that I am initiating the sitrep. My computer crash and frequent evening power shutdowns in Gurgaon have contributed to the problem. My apologies to all those who telephonically complained on the subject.
Some of the emails betray a degree of frustration at the seeming lack of action by the IESM of late. The appetite for action is indeed admirable. However, it needs to be known the current pause is deliberate. After the President included OROP in her address on 4 June 2009, it was only logical that we await the final word from the government; it has still not come.
The pause has been fruitfully utilised.
1. We met the Defence Minister on 19 June. He advised that since the subject is being handled by the RRM Shri Pallam Raju, we should keep in touch with the latter. Apart from writing to him, we sought a meeting with Pallam Raju. He has not responded for over three weeks and it is safe to assume that he is not keen to meet us possibly because he has no answers to some of the questions that he knows we would raise.
2. Our request for a meeting with the president has been pending for some two weeks. Telephonic enquiries reveal that no decision has yet been taken.
3. A meeting was held with the BJP President and on our urging a question on OROP was raised in the Parliament that was replied by the Defence Minister.
4. A meeting with a group of MsP of different affiliations should hopefully materialize in the last week of August.
5. Apart from regular telephonic contact with ESM across the country, rallies have been addressed in Haryana on 28 Jul and 5 Aug. Next rally is planned for 23 Aug 2009.
It is heartening to note that there is an overwhelming response from the ESM that we should continue with the struggle in case the government gives anything less than full OROP. An article of mine on OROP was published in The Tribune: click me and Hari Bhoomi in last week of July. Another one with a focus on the Cabinet Secretary's Committee report has been sent to the Press a few days ago.
Best regards,
Lt Gen (Emeritus) Raj Kadyan, PVSM, AVSM, VSM
Chairman IESM

One rank, one pension
I read Lt-Gen Raj Kadyan’s article, “Why not go in for one rank, one pension?” (July 4). This demand is a classic example of a case badly handled by our representatives and the government. Why are we being misled into believing that this demand is still hanging fire? Hasn’t it been partially met and implemented as part of the Fifth Pay Commission vide GOI, Ministry of Defence letter dated June 7, 1999 removing the disparity in pension between pre-and post-96 retirees holding the same rank, but for a small anomaly? Isn’t it time for one rank, one pension?

The anomaly is that those having served in a particular rank for a longer duration have not been given the due benefit for the annual increments earned by them in that rank. Surely, it doesn’t amount to total non-acceptance of the demand.

It is pointless to repeat the demand every now and then. Instead, we should thank the government for meeting a larger part of the demand and request for an early acceptance of the remaining portion which entails very little financial impact. A little reconciliation and change of tack will help.
Wg-Cdr C.L. SEHGAL (retd), Jalandhar
Letter to Editor: Tribune