20100727(1) – to milvet and others
SOVEREIGNTY & SERVICES
by
Major General (Emeritus) RN Radhakrishnan
Part -9
Where Do We Go?
Section 2
Government Supports APIP
Intrinsic Meaning being used to beat ESM Down
With ref to the news item in The Hindustan Times of 27-07-2010 of Chandigarh (reproduced in Appendix A), let us get our views clear.
· What was the direction of AFT, to the Government?
· Was the demand of ESM ‘OROP’, with its intrinsic meaning as given in the news item ‘equal pension for a particular rank, irrespective of the date of retirement’?
If this was what the ESM demanded by going to the AFT, obviously it would not be upheld in the higher Court and it is a setback to us.
It is unfortunate that we still keep using the acronym ‘OROP’, then try and define it differently from the intrinsic meaning, thus confusing everyone. The definition of IESM is not different to what I defined in my papers on APIP. But this definition of ours is known only among a few of net-savvy veterans. The Government uses its political strength and the media to propagate the idea that ESM is harping on OROP that prevailed prior to third pay commission and to convey to all that even courts have not agreed to OROP. The news item highlights the Law Ministry’s understanding by the quote from the CS Committee report Para 2.12, “if all of them have to be treated alike providing same pension, while ignoring their respective variations in length of service and average pay, that may amount to treating un-equals as equals. This may entail discrimination, offending the principle of equality before law as enshrined in the Constitution”. This is the stand that was taken by the Committee of Secretary headed by the Cabinet Secretary in the report dated 30 Jun, 2009.
It is obvious that our demand that two pensioners holding the same emeritus rank having put in the same number of years of service are to be treated as equals. But, the Law Ministry cleverly introduced another clause that the average pay also must be same. Now, with each pay commission the pay is revised and the average pay for the ones who retired prior to the date of implementation is different from those who retire after the date of implementation, irrespective of holding the same rank and same length of service. Thus they are un-equals, is what seems to be the stand of the Government.
Ensuring the same average pay
To beat them in their own game, I had proposed as given below, in my Analysis of the Cabinet Secretary’s report, which was forwarded to the RM vide my DOL RNRK/ESW/19/20090831(1) dated 2009-08-31 and a copy handed over to the RRM on 16 Sep 2009.
“Let the pay of all pensioners of the Armed Forces be notionally fixed at the rate given to similar officers of the same rank and same length of service after the revision of pay scales with effect from 1.1.2006, and, thereafter, their pension benefits be computed on such basis as applicable to those retiring after the date of implementation with prospective effect from the same date of implementation.
Permit the pensioners to draw an annual increment at the rate applicable to the serving personnel, such that the disparity, if any, that arises due to such increment to the serving personnel can be set right”.
Had this been pursued and achieved, you would see that the average emoluments also shall be the same for any two officers holding the same rank and same length of service irrespective of the date of retirement. Thus we achieve equal pension for equal rank and equal service, in other words Absolute Parity in Pension.
Double Standard of the Government
Granting APIP The Government is skilled in being cunning to adopt double standard by adopting modified parity. The Government has awarded the same pension to all of a particular rank with no regard to either the number of years of service or the average pay they drew at the time of their respective date of retirement, by adopting some arbitrary formula and arbitrary notional pay. In other words OROP has been applied to all pensioners prior to the date of implementation of 6CPCR, in contradiction to the Apex Court ruling and the Law Ministry’s interpretation. Thus we find that modified parity is nothing but OROP for the pre 2006 pensioners. Does this not amount to discrimination, offending the principle of equality before law as enshrined in the Constitution? Diabolically clever, indeed!
Denying APIP The Government has denied APIP by ensuring that the pre 2006 pensioners’ pay is not fixed the same manner in which the serving personnel’s pay is fixed in the revised scale, thus ensuring that the average pay for the two sets of pensioners separated by the date of implementation of CPCR even if they are holding the same rank and same length of service, is not the same. They are un-equal with respect to the average pay, hence not entitled to equal pension. Boy oh Boy, how naive we are and how clever the bureaucrats are!
Let us be equally smart
Now it is our turn to use the Government’s proclaimed to stand to pin them down and get what we rightfully want.
