Soldiers, JCOs pension upped; officers ignored

No Responses

1. K L Jaspal Says:
   August 10th, 2009 at 5:33 pm

   As per budget speech of Fin Min, the OROP is approved for few ex-men. All Officers are debarred.
   In fact it is not understood whom to believe. The Fin min says some thing else where as def min says some thing else. If the def min is right the govt needs to be congratulated for fulfilling its promise and long pending demand of def pensioners but if fin min is to be believed it is shame and disgrace to the concerned auth who drafted and approved OROP. It is shame for govt. for such action. The debarred def pensioners wish to know:
   Are the debarred pensioners are not the ex-men, did they not serve the nation? Did they not fight and many of them give their lives while fighting against external and internal enemies, whose families and children suffered? Could the def pensioners served or fought the wars without officers/can it be ever possible in future? Were the deprived def pensioners not sincere honest loyal faithful obedient dutiful submissive docile tractable and disciplined soldiers?
   If the fin Min is right, the following is submitted by:
   Lt. Col. (Retd.) K L Jaspal,
   H. No. 28, Sector 21-B, Faridabad, Haryana. Pin-121001.
   Mobile Phone No. 09471889885
   Email address: krishanlaljaspal@yahoo.co.in
   SUBJECT: DIVIDING THE DEFENSE PENSIONERS AND CREATING DISCRIMINATION IN APPROVING ONE RANK AND ONE PENSION FOR THEM AND BY INCARPORATITING A CLAUSE OF PRO RATA OF 33YEARS FOR CALCULATING PENSION OF PRE-2006 PENSIONERS.
   PROLOGUE.
   1. In accordance with the contents of Article 14, this piece of writing is to throw light on similarly circumstanced country men who cannot be and must not be arbitrarily divided or categorized or classified by the state for debarring some of them from the benefits whenever announced by the Govt. Efforts are made to explain that already existing classifications/categories of pensioners are founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes pensioners that are grouped together. Whenever and wherever, the state has ever made any deceptive efforts to further classify the pensioners for its own financial or any other interest, but that was against pensioners in financial or in any other manners, it was checked by the Law of the Land. Many of the courts of the country including the Apex court of India always stood by Article 14, which forbade the Govt. from doing so. Article 14 is therefore specifically incorporated in the constitution to ensure fairness and equality of treatment to all the countrymen of the nation, so that all of them are treated alike both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed by the state or any of the state’s authorities.

   A BRIEF SUMMARY OF ARTICLE 14.
   2. Article 14 of the constitution strikes at arbitrariness of the State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment to all the country men of India. This article is attracted where equals are treated differently without any reasonable basis. The principle making the guarantee compulsory and obligatory is that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. Equal laws would have to be applied to all the persons happened to be in the same situation and there should be no discrimination between one class of persons from the other classes of similar persons as regards the subject-matter of the legislation, their position is substantially the same.
   3. The Article 14 further explicitly and unambiguously forbids class division by the state. This Article, unequivocally explains that the classification already made is founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those that are left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question.
   ENTITLEMENT OF PENSION.
   4. It is well known that the pension is a right and not a bounty or gratuitous benefit. The payment of pension does not depend upon the discretion of the Government alone but it is governed as per the constitution of the nation and by the rules framed by the parliament. Thus, a government servant coming within the preview of those rules is entitled to claim the pension.
   CLASSIFICATIONS OF DEFENSE SERVICE PENSIONERS CARRIED OUT BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DISREGARDING AND DISRESPECTING THE CONTENTENTS AND SPIRIT OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WHICH FORBIDS FOR DOING SO.
   5. Since inception of defense forces, the defense pensioners have just in one class; irrespective of ranks they wear i.e. retired defense personnel called ex-servicemen or defense pensioners. Whenever the pensionary benefits were ever enhanced by the Govt., these have been made applicable to all the pensioners, irrespective of their dates of retirements or ranks they wore.
   6. Factually, Just to partially approving the concept of OROP and denying the benefit to a large number of defense pensioners, the Govt. of India have divided one united and unified the homogeneous class of ex-servicemen/defense pensioners in number of classes as under:
   7. Firstly: Post 2006 defense pensioners and secondly: Pre-2006 defense pensioners. Such a division was never made earlier for affording any pensionary benefit to a few of them and debarring all others after any of the Central Pay Commissions.
   8. The pre-2006 defense pensioners have been further divided in other two classes; Firstly: Pre-1997 defense pensioners and secondly: Post 1997 defense pensioners upto Dec 31 2005. Even such a division was never made earlier for affording any pensionary benefit to a few of them and debarring a large number of all others after any of the Central Pay Commissions.
   9. They have once again divided the defense pensioners in other two classes: Firstly, defense pensioners that of personnel below officers’ ranks (PBOR) and secondly, defense pensioners of officers’ ranks, in spite of the fact that they always have been a unified class of es-servicemen/ex-defense pensioners. This too has never happened in the past that one part of defense pensioners is to be given enhanced pensionary benefits and other ones are to be denied/debarred.
   10. Like-wise, the govt. just to re-introduce the pro rata clause of 33 years, have also divided all pensioners i.e. the defense pensioners as well as civilian central govt. pensioners in two classes: Firstly, the present pensioners i.e. post 2006 pensioners to give full pension on completion of 20 years service, and secondly, pre-2006 pensioners to re-fix their pension on the bases of completion of 33 years of service, in spite of the fact that 6th CPC has completely removed this earlier existing clause. The division of pensioners in this manner is just for applying pro rata of 33 years, only i.e. in the case of pre-2006 pensioners alone, though this clause stand removed by the 6th CPC. However, even such a division was never made earlier for affording any pensionary benefit to some of the pensioners, while others are to be denied after any of the Central Pay Commissions.
   11. It seems if the govt. has divided the pensioners with ulterior, underhanded, mysterious and inexplicable motive so that none of the large number of pensioners can put forth their grievances unitedly.
   12. It is surprising to note that our own Govt have adopted this sort of a policy of dividing even the defense pensioners who have been nation’s bravest heroes, most sincere, honest, loyal, faithful, obedient, dutiful, submissive, docile, tractable, and disciplined soldiers during their service. They served the nation in most hostile, unfavourable conditions and difficult terrains on its border to safe guard its safety and security. They fought against external and internal enemies, without caring of their own life as well as future of their families and children. The Govt must have done not so, rather, must have some soft corner to do justice to the pensioners, especially to the defense pensioners, who have given their entire prime youth in service of the nation.
   WELFARE OF DEFENSE PERSONNEL.
   13. It is that of paramount importance that soldiers’ welfare while they are serving as well after their retirement must be taken care of, so that they do not have to worry, vacillate, remain anxious, agonize, and lose sleep and their proficiency, competence, performance, drive and morale is never effected adversely. If it is not done, the morale, self-confidence, self-esteem, and buoyancy of the soldiers are most likely to be effected adversely. Considering the conditions a soldier is required to serve, nature of his duties and expectations from him, suitable candidate may not like to join the forces, which will not in the national interest and may prove to be disastrous and catastrophic at some unknown stage
   CONCEPT OF ONE RANK ONE PENSION (OROP).
   14. Principally, the concept of ONE RANK ONE PENSION (OROP) implies that, all the defense personnel, who have retired or will be retiring from the same rank/post with the same length of service, should always get same amount of pension, irrespective of their past or future dates of retirements and total length of service they rendered or will render for the national security.
   15. The demand of One Rank One Pension (OROP) had been pending since decades. The govt. has divided the defense personnel in number of classes just to debar a large number of them from the concept and benefit of entitlement of One Rank One Pension (OROP) before its approval.
   16. Astonishingly, the Govt. of India while approving the concept of One Rank One Pension, have completely ignored, unobserved, disregarded, overlooked and by passed the contents of Article 14 of the constitution of the country as well as judgements of the Apex court and various other courts of the country.
   17. The demand of “One Rank One Pension (OROP)” of defense personnel is long outstanding and has been raised time and again by the defense personnel/pensioners. Unfortunately and regrettably, all the preceding CENTAL PAY COMMISSIONS (CPCs) and the Governments have been shying away, refusing, declining,, throwing out, denying, and thrusting aside this legitimate demand for decades. It is mentioned with anguish, agony, pain, grief and distress that it had been happening despite the fact that main national political parties of the country like National Congress Party and Bhartia Janta Party, have been including this demand in their previous election manifestoes. This subject was also included in the President’s address in the Parliament in 2004, thereby making One Rank One Pension (OROP) the declared policy of Government (not that of any particular political party).
   18. The National Congress party and Bhatia Janta party had incorporated in their election manifesto before the preceding general election to approve the concept of providing One Rank One Pension, the long outstanding demand of defense pensioners. None of the political party mentioned that the concept of OROP will be approved in the case of a few of the defense pensioners by dividing them in various classes. Accordingly, the issue was taken up by the present UPA Govt from the very beginning on assuming the power of its second tenure.
   19. Nevertheless, it is most disappointing to note that while approving One Rank One Pension benefit, a large number of the defense pensioners “personnel below officers ranks” and all the defense pensioners of the officer’ ranks have been debarred/left out of this legitimate benefit and approved in case of some of them. It is regretted that while approving OROP, the defense pensioners have been divided in number of classes by the govt. just to debar a large number of them from the concept of One Rank One Pension benefit. From the action of dividing the defense pensioners in such a manner, it can be clearly seen that the govt. has totally violated, disregarded, ignored, unobserved, overlooked and by passed the contents of the Article of the constitution of the country.
   20. The UPA Govt. must fulfill their promise, assurance and pledge since it was incorporated in their manifesto/agenda of providing OROP in totality for all the past, present and future defense personnel/pensioners without dividing them in various classes as has been presently done.
   21. As a result of the most undesired action of dividing the defense pensioners, they feel to have been cheated, disenchanted, let down, embittered and disillusioned by the govt. It was never expected and imagined that the present govt. could do such a great injustice to them and it would approve the concept of One Rank One Pension benefit just for a few of the defense pensioners and a large number of them would be excluded and debarred from this long awaited legitimate demand. The govt. and the concerned authorities therefore have done a most heinous, monstrous, atrocious, odious, shocking, wicked and scandalous act of debarring the old soldiers from getting their long awaited due.
   22. It is regretted with extreme pain, distress and anguish to point out that by dividing the defense pensioners in number of classes in such a deceitful manner, the govt. seem to have treated the left out defense pensioners from the approved preview of One Rank One Pension as if the debarred defense pensioners have been disloyal, or discarded, or undisciplined, or traitors, or conspirators, or collaborators, or defectors, or deserters, or spies, or double agents, or turncoats. If it is not so, no govt. could ever think of meting such a shabby, scruffy, dilapidated, grungy, disgraceful, shameful, shocking, outrageous, scandalous, dishonorable, discreditable, reprehensible, appalling, biased, prejudiced, unfair, bigoted, inequitable and discriminatory treatment to any of the defense pensioners.
   23. The debarred defense forces pensioners wish to ask the present Govt. and the concerned authorities to reply to the question: Does any of the authorities who approved such an awful, appalling, shocking, evil, wicked, depraved, brutal, and abysmal action of dividing the defense pensioners in such a deceitful, cunning, devious and deceitful manner and debarring a large number of them from the benefit of OROP have any answer of the following questions in support of their misdeed, transgression and misdemeanor:
   a. Are the remaining debarred defense pensioners for whom benefit of One Rank One Pension has not been approved are not the ex-defense personnel and did they not serve the nation, may they be officers or PBOR of pre-1997 period and the officers of post 1997 period?
   b. Did all the debarred defense pensioners when in service of their beloved motherland not fight and many of them not give their lives while fighting against the external and internal enemies, whose families and children have suffered and are still suffering till date?
   c. Could the defense forces pensioners served or fought the wars/battles against the enemies without the officers or can it be possible ever in future?
   d. Have the defense pensioners who have been debarred from the benefit of OROP not served the nation like other soldiers for whom the concept of OROP has been approved?
   e. Were the deprived defense pensioners not sincere, honest, loyal, faithful, obedient, dutiful, submissive, docile, tractable, and disciplined soldiers while they were in service of their beloved country?
   f. Did the deprived defense pensioners not give their prime youth and some of them their lives in service of the nation while they were in service?
   24. The whole nation in general and the debarred defense pensioners in particular would like to know the answers of the above questions and similar many more questions. It is felt that no concerned authorities can ever answer the above questions.
   25. It seem that the authorities think that all the debarred officers and some PBOR are from the royal families like Maharaja Bhawani Singh who did not take his pay except Rupee one as his salary. Hence, they need not get the benefit of OROP.
   26. OR, they think that the debarred officers and PBOR pensioners are multi millionaires/billionaires like politicians who keep spending in crores for fighting elections, hence they are not required to give the benefit of OROP. Surprisingly, all the MPs, irrespective any amount of wealth they possess, even then they get full pension for each and all of their tenures for any amount of period they remain MPS, where as the defense pensioners are denied full pension/OROP for their such a long service to the nation.
   27. It is emphatically and vigorously pointed out that such an action of dividing the defense pensioners and debarring a large number of the existing pensioners is that of denial of equal benefit for fixation of pension for the pre-2006 defense pensioners including defense officers’ pensioners. Such a division of defense pensioners is the explicit case of arbitrary introduction of words of limitation as per Article 14. There is nothing immutable and incontrovertible about the choosing of an event as an eligibility criterion subsequent to a specified date. As the event is certain but its occurrence may have happened to be at a different point of time, it is considered wholly irrelevant and arbitrary, having an undesirable effect of dividing a homogeneous class of defense pensioners and creating discrimination among them, which can be easily severed and set aside by any court of the country.
   28. The Govt. is fully aware of the contents of Article 14 and its requirement/importance. It seems that the govt. by dividing the defense pensioners has intentionally and deliberately violated and disregarded the spirit of Article 14 as it has completely ignored, unobserved, overlooked and by passed its contents. It is therefore just and proper that the words introducing the arbitrary and fortuitous circumstances which are vulnerable as denying equality be severed and struck down by the govt. with immediate effect.
   29. It is strongly felt that if the govt. still justify their action of dividing the defense pensioners and debarring a large number of them from getting the benefit of OROP, in that case, it is suggested with anguish that all the debarred defense pensioners who are considered a fit case for their disqualification and debarring then from giving the benefit of One Rank One Pension; it is better “all of them be shot dead or hanged, so that none of them are required to be paid any amount of their pension”, rather than wounding and insulting them in such a heinous and atrocious manner.
   APPLYING PRO RATA OF 33 YEARS FOR GIVING FULL PENSION.
   30. As mentioned at para 10 above, the DP&T (P&PW have retained the clause of pro rata of 33 years, quoting; it is as per pension regulations of 1972. The pension regulations were originally framed afresh at that time when number of clauses were incorporated in these regulations. It may be noted that most of the clauses have undergone changes since thereafter.
   31. It is clear that the pension is admissible to the eligible employees in accordance with the pension regulations of 1972. The pension regulations of 1972 lay down as to: How much should be the pension, how it is to be calculated, when it is to be revised, how much and when it is to be revised, after how long one should be entitled, how it is re-fixed e.t.c. These regulations are being changed periodically since 1972. Nevertheless, these have always been uniformly applied category-wise/class-wise, but class/category was never further divided to give benefit to some and deny the others. Rather, it has always been done without any discrimination. However, if the Govt. ever divided the category or class of employees for whatever reasons that happened to be against the interest of some pensioners, the courts of the land always struck down such divisions. Hence, in view of the fact that 6th CPC has removed the period of 33 years service for giving full pension and full pension, which now is eligible after 20 years of service; retaining the pro rata of 33 years for pre 2006 pension alone is highly illogical and discriminatory.
   32. It is reiterated that dividing the defense personnel in various classes just for approving the concept/benefit of OROP for a few of them and denying it to a large number of them. Also, dividing all other pensioners as mentioned above, is just for applying the pro rata of 33 year for re-fixation of their pension after 6th CPC. It is emphatically, forcefully, ardently, insistently, strongly, heartily and vigorously stated that while creating such a division among the defense as well as all other pensioners in this manner, the Govt has completely, totally, entirely, fully, utterly, and absolutely neglected the principal of equality and the contents of Article 14 and even overlooked, ignored and disregarded the judgements of the Apex Court of the country and also various other courts delivered their judgments in adopting the principal of equality in the past.
   33. Further, the govt. and concerned authorities, are also well aware that the Constitutional Bench of Honorable Supreme Court of India gave decision in the case of D S Nakra and others Verses Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 305 . One of the questions posed in the case was whether a class of Pensioners could be divided for the purpose of entitlement and payment of pension into those who retired by certain date and those who retired thereafter. The Constitution Bench held that such division being both arbitrary and unprincipled; the classification did not stand the test of Article 14. The argument that the cut off date had to be fixed in view of the limited financial resources available to cover up additional expenses to be incurred on account of revision of pay scale was not accepted by the Constitution Bench of the honorable Supreme Court.
   34. The above Judgement pronounced by a Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court is available at http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.aspx for the benefit of all who want to read it.
   35. The case dates back to 70s when the Government had introduced Liberalized Pension Scheme. Earlier pension was calculated based on the average salary of last 36 months. Under Liberalized Pension Scheme, the provisions were changed to calculate the pension based on the average salary of last 10 months. This was applicable to all the present and future pensioners. The case was filed by one retired civil officer (subject to Central Civil Pension Rules 1972) and one retired defense officer (subject to Army Pension Regulations) and the third petitioner was a Registered Society. Only the following extracts of this judgment will clarify the of the Apex court, which is the position:
   a. “Proceeding further, this Court observed that where all relevant considerations are the same, persons holding identical posts may not be treated differently in the matter of their pay merely because they belong to different departments. If that can’t be done when they are in service, can that be done during their retirement? Expanding this principle, one can confidently say that if pensioners form a class, their computation cannot be by different formula affording unequal treatment solely on the ground that some retired earlier and some retired later.”
   b. Further “All pensioners whenever they retired, would be covered by the liberalised pension scheme, because the scheme is a scheme for payment of pension to a pensioners governed by 1972 Rules. The date of retirement is irrelevant. But the revised scheme would be operative for all from the date mentioned in the scheme and would bring under its umbrella all existing pensioners and those who retired/retire subsequent to that date. In case of pensioners who retired prior to the specified date, their pension would be computed afresh”
   36. The above part pertains to clearly explains that while approving OROP, the defense pensioners of officers’ ranks and defense personnel below officers ranks must not be differentiated. It also clarifies that the pensioners must not be divided in various classes on the ground that some retired earlier and some retired later for giving the benefit of OROP to some and debar others as well as adopting pro rata of 33 yeas for some and giving full pension in 20 years to others.
   37. It is abundantly clear from the above extracts that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, upholding the Article 14 of the constitution of India has already objected to the division of pensioners and accepted the principle of equality and this is the Apex court of the country which enjoys the status of the LAW OF THE LAND.
   38. The Apex court judgements apply exactly to the case of all the debarred defense pensioners for approving One Rank One Pension for them irrespective of their date of retirement and rank they held before their retirement. If the govt. still does not reconsider their decision of approving the concept of OROP for all the defense pensioners, it will be the contempt of court orders as well as disregard and disrespect to Article 14 of the constitution of India.
   39. Deprival of due and that too justified due of approval of concept of OROP for a large number of the defense pensioners including retired officers has created gloom and obscurity as well as a great resentment, antipathy and umbrage amongst the pre-2006 defense retirees.
   40. It is submitted that it may not be possible for the debarred old disciplined defense and civil pensioners to do what other civilian force of the country can do, due to their old age, poor health, left over responsibilities and financial constraints; moreover all of them being spread in far flung areas and some in most remote areas in the country. They are unable to approach any of the concerned authorities or Courts of Law to seek justice due to their inabilities and constrains. The govt. therefore must not take undue advantage of their inabilities, rather, must have mercy on them to give OROP to all the defense pensioners irrespective of their date of retirement and the ranks they held before their retirement and remove the clause of pro rata of 33 years for re-fixing their pension, as this clause is completely removed by the 6th CPC for all the post 2005 retirees.
   41. It is mandatory for the Govt. to Adhere, regard, observe, respect and honor Article 14 of the constitution of India and number of Apex court judgements on the subject, as well as considering the nature of services the defense pensioners rendered in extreme unfavorable climatic conditions, and terrains against external and internal enemies of the nation for the security and safety of the country and the countrymen. As such, it becomes, necessary, unavoidable obligatory, binding and compulsory for the govt. to reconsider the matter to have sympathetic consideration in favour of old soldiers to approve One Rank One Pension for all of them without any discrimination, and prejudice.
   42. The govt. and the concerned authorities therefore to please do look into this matter without any prejudice, narrow-mindedness, discrimination and insularity to initiate immediate action and issue amendment to sanction One Rank One Pension for all the defense pensioners without any disparity of ranks. It is equally essential to remove the unwarranted, gratuitous, uncalled-for, unjustifiable and unsubstantiated pro rata clause of 33 years for the pre 2006 pensioners.
   43. In view of the facts, particulars, details, specifics, documentary evidence and veracity explained above, all the defense pensioners, most industriously, earnestly, vigorously, sincerely and honestly request and appeal to benign self of the President of India, Vice President, Speaker of the Lok Sabha, Prime Minister, all the Ministers of the Govt., MPs of the country and concerned authorities to please examine, and review the case to approve the principle/concept of One Rank One Pension in totality for all the defense forces pensioners without attaching any strings of dates of retirement or ranks they wore before their retirement.
   44. Also, another earnest request is made to remove the clause of pro rata of 33 years for all the pre-2006 pensioners for fixation of their revised pension.
   45. The most urgent action in the matter is solicited please.
   Yours Sincerely,
   Lt. Col. (retd). K L Jaspal.

Discussion