A reading of one of the
blog-posts on Maj Navdeep Singh’s blog “Indian Military Services Benefits And
Issues” (link at the end of this blog-post) drew attention to a portion of the
circular issued for implementing OROP.
Para 11(b) of PCDA circular 555
mentions a distinction between ranks in which ESM retired and ranks to be used
for computing pensions.
The context, in which the para finds inclusion in the Circular, remains unclear. At first glance this appears to relate to
those specific cases of PPOs in which the two types of ranks have been endorsed
for payment of pension to holders of such PPOs.
However, just the knowledge that
such a provision can exist helps to indicate a way out for establishing parity
of pensions for older and current retirees.
We know that para 11(a) of
Circular 555 provides for payment of Lt Col pensions to post 01 Jan 1996
retirees in Maj rank with more than 21 years of service. This would be one
example of “Rank For Pension” being different from “Last Rank Held”. As to how OROP can ever be OROP if pre Jan 1996 Maj retirees, with the same service of 21
years, do not get the same pension as post 01 Jan 1996 Maj retirees, is not a matter that should be left for a judicial commission to sort out.
This anomaly does not end with
the 21 years matter. The afore-mentioned blog post in Maj Navdeep Singh's blog mentions the fact, and I quote, ”nobody retires in the rank of Major as per the current dispensation,
the pension of past retirees was to be based on notional fixation”.
All very understandable so far. But the blog-post goes on to suggest, I
quote again, “figures in the tables however fall below the notional fixation
for the said ranks. An officer of the rank of Major, if taken as not promoted
to Lt Col and progressing in his own rank with due increments in his own
pay-band…”.
Here we get into a zone of imagination that centres on
what if the older Maj retiree had continued to draw increments in his own
pay-band? I would like to ask here, why that idea should limit the true concept of being "notional" about fixing pensions for older retirees?
The older Maj retiree who had put
in 20 years, or more, of service would have retired as Lt Col, on time-bound basis, with equal
service after 16 Dec 2004. If we have to start imagining things and arrive at
“notional” fixations, what is wrong with the “notion” of the older Maj retiree
having actually progressed, on time-bound basis, to the pay-band of Lt Col, a notion based on an
actual post 16 Dec 2004 parallel, rather than imagining non-existent increments
in the same rank?
Besides, giving a time bound
promotee who retired prior to 16 Dec 2004 less pension, fixed in a lower
pay-band, than another time-bound promotee with the same service who retired
after 16 Dec 2004, is as clear a case of discrimination as can be thought of.
It is all very well to cite fortuitousness as a basis for such differentials.
Cut to the basics, it is all a result of capricious whimsy and arbitrariness
rather than a ”fortuitous” outcome of some administrative
process.
I clearly recall a case being
cited online when a serving Officer of the armed forces had stated that ”it was opined....”,
a phrase very useful for justifying administrative logic of the reprehensible
kind, that there are “....bound to be loosers(sic) and gainers”
in Govt decisions such as the selection of date of implementation of AV Singh
Committee.
The concept advanced by that individual, of the Govt acting as a
croupier in a game of chance at a casino, is so unspeakably repugnant that one
yearns for a metaphorical blow-torch to enable incineration of such loathsome ideas
at the source, taking care, of course, that the brain-cells that produced such
logical travesty be only mildly singed in the process, in deference to provisions
of human rights, or, in view of the dubious state of evolution of neurons and synapses that could produce output of that nature, principles of SPCA may be invoked, if applicable, to ensure a post-obliteration certificate of the kind "no kind of life-form was harmed in the obliteration of that vile idea of Government-as-croupier".
Therefore, if we are to implement
parities as called for in a paradigm changing concept such as OROP, we need to
jettison some intellectual baggage that keeps us rooted to ways of old. The
distinction provided for in Circular 555 points us in the right direction.
Just imagine, if the
administrative machinery could issue the appropriate orders and PPOs could be
endorsed as follows:
- Endorsement
In PPOs Of Maj With Service More Than 20 Years And Less Than 26 Years : “Rank
Last Held : Major; Rank For Pension :
Lt Col”
- Endorsement
In PPOs Of Maj and Lt Col with Service More Than 26 Years : “Rank Last Held
: Major/Lt Col (as applicable); Rank For Pension : Col(TS)”
This would come close to the idea
of the previously spoken about variable veteran rank and remove a major anomaly arising out of “One Rank”
of OROP not being really “one rank”. Let us not forget, yesterday’s Major with
20 years service = Today’s Lt Col with the same service. It is a central concept in the whole gamut of ideas and views on OROP.
As to why the stalwarts keep
repeating OROP as implemented being “One Rank Several Pensions” and lose sight
of the fact that OROP should also not be “Several Ranks And One Pension” is
something that will need to be looked into and put up for consideration at a
subsequent date.
