IESM: On OROP

Basic Facts
• Defence Forces contribution to the country
• Soldiering is a different profession
• Serving and the Veterans are closely linked

Armed Forces Contribution

• Fought five wars since Independence (14,784 dead)
• Involved in IS duties since the Fifties. 3001 dead since 2004 alone ie seven dead
every six days.

Soldiering is Unique
• Soldier’s life can only be experienced and cannot be explained
• Early retirement: 85-90% personnel retire in their Thirties. No provision for
alternative job till the stipulated age of superannuation
• Very limited avenues for promotion
1. In a unit of 800, only one Sub Major
2. Only one General in a cadre strength of 46,000 officers
• Promotion very slow. A Maj General reaches that rank in about 32/33 years
• Knowingly and willingly faces risks and dangers
• Abrogation of Constitutional rights; cannot even leave at will
• Hard & risky life, separation, disruption, 24X7 working. Shortage of officers puts
even greater load on the remaining

What is OROP?
• Pension is not a bounty; a compensation for services rendered in the past. If the
service is equal, the pension must also be equal. In military, equality in service
has two components ie, length of service and rank on retirement.
• It means two military persons retiring in the same rank and after equal length of
service, should get the same pension. This forms the basis for OROP.
• OROP is a demand for justice and equity and not merely for more money.

Implications for Non-grant of OROP

Basic Pension % Difference
Pre 1.1.06 Post 1.1.06
Sepoy Rs 4971 Rs 7045 42%
 Havildar Rs 5689 Rs 8145 43%
Lt Col Rs 25700 Rs 28695 12%
Maj Gen Rs 26700 Rs 33925 27%

Note:
1. An old Hav pensioner gets 24% lower pension than a post 1.1.06 Sepoy
2. An old Maj General pensioner gets 7.5% lower pension than post 1.1.06 Lt Col
3. Intra as well as inter rank differences run against the ethos of a rank based
organisation

History
• Military historically treated as a distinct force. Their emoluments were kept
separate from those of others after Independence
• The First Pay Commission for Central Government employees kept the Armed
Forces out of its terms of reference
• The truncated career was compensated by a financial weightage given to every
rank
• Military pensions continued to be higher than that of the other Central Govt
employees
• The govt however decided to bring the Defence Forces under the purview of
CPCs starting from the 3rd CPC
• In the 3rd CPC the financial weightage was done away with and was replaced by
an arbitrary weightage of number of years of service
• The 3rd CPC in order to civilianise the Military pensions related pension to last
pay drawn as a percentage rather than relating to rank as heretofore. The cadre
and pay structure wherein defence personnel moved much more slowly to reach
higher ranks/pay scales was totally overlooked. This resulted in Military pensions
falling way behind their civilian counterparts, notwithstanding the weightage in
years given for truncated career.
• KP Singh Deo Committee’s view was that Military pensions as these existed prior
to 3rd CPC should be restored. Since Rank played a very important role in the
military, reflected its ethos and is allowed to be retained as per our Constitution
ever after retirement, pensions had to be rank-based. Every substantive officer,
JCO and others should receive the pension of the rank held on retirement
irrespective of their vintage and date of retirement.
• Within a few years of the KP Singh Deo Committee’s above report, the 4th CPC
was announced. The 4th CPC accepted the recommendations of the MOD that
since KP Singh Deo Report with regard to service pensions was under
consideration nothing be changed at that stage. To alleviate the plight of personnel
other than commissioned officers, a ‘one time increment’ was proposed and
implemented.
 • Smt. Indira Gandhi reportedly had accepted the OROP demand in 1983 but before
it could be processed, she was snatched away by destiny in 1984. Reportedly, Shri
VP Singh too had accepted the demand as PM. When told that if OROP was given
to the Defence Personnel, civilian employees will also demand the same, he is on
record having said, “Let the civilian employees swap places with the military.”
Unfortunately, before orders on OROP could be issued, his govt fell.
• At the 5th CPC the Armed Forces made a strong plea for the grant of OROP.
Whilst accepting the logic of OROP, the 5th CPC recorded that giving it to Armed
Forces pensioners would generate similar demands from civilian employees of the
Central Govt. They however recognised the plight of pensioners and introduced a
system of ‘modified’ parity amongst various vintages of pensioners.
• In April 1999 the then Defence Minister Shri George Fernandes announcement
at Anadpur Sahib that OROP would be granted within a few days. However, for
some reason the same was not done.
• Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence headed by Madan Lal Khurana
recommended OROP in 2003. Paragraph 99 of the Report is significant. It states,
“The Committee have been recommending ‘one rank one pension’ to armed
forces personnel time and again. The Committee observes that successive
governments and Pay Commissions have made improvements in the pension
structure keeping in view of the cost of living index. This has accentuated the
disparity of pensionary benefits between pensioners of the same rank. The older
pensioners who have become infirm in ability and capability and burdened with a
larger social obligation receive pension calculated at the rate of pay at the time
of their retirement in 1950s, 1960, or 1970s, which is quite paltry and the
Dearness Relief quite inconsequential in today’s context of inflation and
shrinking purchasing value of money. The nation must pay its debt to those
defenders of the motherland with gratitude and humility. We should, instead of
looking for precedents in this regard, create precedents for others to emulate.
Any amount paid in this regard would be a small token of our gratitude to them.
The Committee therefore, once again reiterates their earlier recommendation for
providing ‘one rank one pension’ to the armed forces personnel.”
• Another Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence headed by Shri Satpal
Maharaj again recommended grant of OROP in 2010
• Punjab Govt in 2010 passed a resolution in the State Assembly supporting the
demand for OROP for military pensioners
• HP Govt passed a similar resolution in 2010

Case for OROP

1. Due to the early retirement, the Veterans’ pension is fixed at a very early stage of
their career, and is obviously low.
2. Retiring early, they miss out on benefits of at least 2-3 Pay Commissions that they
 would have seen if they had served till the age of 60 years.
3. If a Sepoy and a Constable lived up to the age of 75 years, then the Sepoy would
have cumulatively lost around Rs 47 lacs vis-a-vis, say a police constable, due to
the differential in their total salary and pension. The least we can do is not to
equate the soldier with others while considering grant of OROP.
4. Taking life span at 67.46 years, (65 years as per ToI report of 16 May 11) after
retirement in his Thirties a soldier would face 3 to 4 pay commissions if he lives
out his normal age. In every pay commission he keeps sliding back financially as
the pay commission benefits are only applied prospectively.
5. There is no denying that in the current milieu mostly it is only the wards of
soldiers that take to soldiering. It is common in villages to see a retired father and
son duo of soldiers living under the same roof after serving for the same number
of years and having attained the same rank. It is very unjust to see the father
earning lesser pension than the son only because the former retired on an earlier
date in history.
6. OROP is not a unique concept. It is already applicable to several categories. This
inter alia includes the President, the Vice President, Governors, judges and all
Secretary level officers and some others. Even in the Defence Services the benefit
is extended to the Service Chiefs and Army Commanders. (A total of nine officers
in authorised cadre strength of some 46,000 in the Army - 0.0195%). Soldiers are
justified in feeling discriminated against when a provision is extended to their
Supreme Commander and to Service Chiefs and they are kept out of its ambit.
7. Realising the justification, the Parliamentary Standing Committees on Defence
have repeatedly recommended grant of OROP. But their recommendations have
been turned down by the govt. The latter is perceived to be unfortunately guided
more by the committees of bureaucrats than by the elected representatives. In a
democracy this is strange.
8. Of late the courts have been using strong language against the govt relating to the
court cases involving the serving personnel and the Veterans versus the govt. This
can be taken as a reflection of the prevailing sentiment in the country
9. There is a general political consensus in favour of OROP. ‘Feeling the wind’ the
States with high density of Defence personnel such as Punjab and Himachal
Pradesh have recently adopted resolutions supporting grant of OROP to Defence
personnel. A soldier is ‘Indian’ in thought and deed and the concept needs to be
adopted at the national level. The issue must not be allowed to be blocked by any
narrow and parochial considerations

Government Stand

Financial
o Exact financial implication can only be worked out by the govt. However, some
 basic inferential deductions can be made.
o In 2003 the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence, while strongly
recommending grant of OROP had computed its annual cost as Rs 613.78 Crore.
Since then catering for inflation and enhancing of the pensions across-the-board
by a factor of 2.26 by the sixth Pay Commission, the total cost would have gone
up approximately four times to roughly 2500 Crore.
o Additionally, when the Cabinet Secretary’s Committee recommended increase in
pensions of all defence personnel less Commissioned officers and Service
widows, and these became effective from 1 July 2009, the Committee had
estimated the total cost as approximately Rs 2200 Crore. The govt has since
claimed that with the implementation of the recommendations of the Cabinet
Secretary’s Committee, OROP has been granted to JCOs, NCOs and Other Ranks
to the extent of 90%. Going by that govt claim and also extending OROP to
officers, and Service widows the total cost should be around 2500 Crore, out of
which some 2200 Crore have already been spent. Even catering for some errors,
and going by the government’s own claim, the remaining expenditure would be
petty when considered at the national level.
o It also needs to be kept in mind that counting ‘pennies’ while giving their justified
dues to Veterans, who gave their best years to serving the country, would be
prima facie unethical. Luckily India of today is in a position to afford to give her
Veterans a sense of justice and equity.

Poverty needs to be shared by all!

Legal
Extract of Judgment in SLP-Civil 12357/2006; U of I and Anr vs SPS Vains
(Retd) and Ors
The case of the respondents however, was that in view of the Constitution
Bench decision of this Court in DS Nakara and others vs. Union of India
(1983) 1 SCC 305, the fixation of a cut-off date as a result of which equals
were treated as unequals, was wholly arbitrary and had been rightly interfered
with by the High Court. One of the questions posed in the aforesaid decision
was whether a class of pensioners could be divided for the purpose of
entitlement and payment of pension into those who retired by a certain date
and those who retired thereafter. The question was answered by the
Constitution Bench holding that such division being both arbitrary and
unprincipled the classification did not stand the test of Article 14.

o It was also the respondents' case that though there was no dispute that Major
Generals were entitled to higher pension benefits than that enjoyed by Brigadiers,
the appellant erroneously insisted that the cut-off date had to be fixed in view of
 the limited financial resources available to cover the additional expenses to be
incurred on account of revision of pay scales.
o The question regarding creation of different classes within the same cadre on the
basis of the doctrine of intelligible differentia having nexus with the object to be
achieved, has fallen for consideration at various intervals for the High Courts as
well as this Court, over the years. The said question was taken up by a
Constitution Bench in the case of DS Nakara (supra) where in no uncertain terms
throughout the judgment it has been repeatedly observed that the date of
retirement of an employee cannot form a valid criterion for classification, for
those who retired by the end of the month will form a class by themselves. In the
context of that case, which is similar to that of the instant case, it was held that
Article 14 of the Constitution had been wholly violated, inasmuch as, the Pension
Rules being statutory in character, the amended Rules, specifying a cut-off date
resulted in differential and discriminatory treatment of equals in the matter of
commutation of pension. It was further observed that it would have a traumatic
effect on those who retired just before that date. The division which classified
pensioners into two classes was held to be artificial and arbitrary and not based on
rational principle and whatever principle, if there was any, had not only no nexus
to the objects sought to be achieved by amending the Pension Rules, but was
counterproductive and ran counter to the very object of the pension scheme. It
was ultimately held that the classification did not satisfy the test of Article 14 of
the Constitution.
o We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal and modify the order of the High Court by
directing that the pay of all pensioners in the rank of Major General and its
equivalent rank in the two other Wings of the Defence Services be notionally
fixed at the rate given to similar officers of the same rank after the revision of pay
scales with effect from 1.1.1996, and, thereafter, to compute their pension benefits
on such basis with prospective effect from the date of filing of the writ petition
and to pay them the difference within three months from date with interest at 10%
per annum. The respondents will not be entitled to payment on account of
increased pension from prior to the date of filing of the writ petition.

Administrative
o Not defined – too vague
o Government has all the data, expertise and means to implement decisions and
judgments
o Justice cannot be denied based on vague considerations

A Look at Some Other Countries

o USA 50 to 75% of last pay drawn fully protected against inflation For
 civil services the scale is 33.75% of pay as pension. 15 to 20% edge
over civilians
o UK Uniform pension as revised irrespective of rank and date or
retirement. 10% edge over civilians
o Japan 70 percent of pay. 12 to 29% edge over civilians on graded scale
o Germany 75% of pay. 5 to 10% edge over civilians
o Yugoslavia 85 % of pay. 15% edge over civilians
o France 75% of pay. 15% edge over civilians
o Pakistan 50-75% of pay with service element military pension. 15% edge
over civilians
o India 50% of pay

Care of Veterans in the UK

Talks over military covenant legal status -- Covenant being converted into law,
o Charities representing the Armed Forces have raised concerns over the treatment
of some service personnel when they retire or return from active service overseas.
o Defence Minister Andrew Robathan told the Daily Telegraph the change is to go
ahead...
o It states soldiers will be called upon to make personal sacrifices - including the
ultimate sacrifice - and that they and their families should expect fair treatment
and to be valued, respected and properly rewarded.
o "ensure the best possible treatment for all our service personnel, both serving and
retired".

Care of Veterans in US (Obama speaks)

o “The care that our veterans receive should never be hindered by budget delays”.
o “We have a sacred trust with those who wear the uniform of the United States of
America, a commitment that begins with enlistment and must never end”.
o From the time one dons the uniform till he is laid to rest

Conclusion
o Today’s serving are tomorrow’s veterans. Therefore, keeping the veterans and by
implication the serving Defence Forces happy and contented should be the prime
concern. They should not be denied their just due merely on fiscal or
administrative considerations.
o Nor should it be denied on the grounds that granting OROP to Defence personnel
might raise similar demands from other govt employees with resultant high
financial outlay. If others felt their need for OROP was as justified, they would
have launched an agitation long ago.
Humble Plea
o OROP demand is small
o Situation may be much worse in 2016 when effect of non-functional promotions
show: 99% of Organised Group ‘A’ Services will go up to HAG + whereas only
Lt Gens might reach there ie 0.02% of the cadre strength
o PMs remarks to a retired Chief (bureaucrats are against OROP)
o Need for seeing the larger picture