To

Date: 08 Nov 2010

Shri A.K.Antony
Hon ble Defence Minister
104, South Block
New Delhi
One Rank One Pension (OROP)
Dear Sh. A.K. Antony
1. We have read with concern your reply to Sh. Rajeev Chandrasekhar, MP to his
letter regarding grant of OROP. The same reply has also been sent by you to Sh.P
ratap Singh Bajwa, Congress MP from Gurdaspur. It is seen that in your letter,
only those examples have been quoted where OROP has not been recommended without
assigning any valid reasons. A large number of examples where OROP has been str
ongly recommended have been omitted. I would attempt to mention some of these:-
(a) OROP was being given to all ranks till 1970/72 in the form of Military Pensi
on . Years of service and the rank achieved by a Defence person determined his pe
nsion.
(b) It was in 1973 that the 3rd CPC amalgamated the Defence Personnel with the
other Civilian Employees. It is here that the whole problem started. Defence Pro
fession is all together different. The bureaucracy had succeeded in downgrading
the Military which was a great blunder. Gradually, SP police who used to be call
ed Kaptan Sahab put on the badges of rank of Major, then Lt Col and now the band o
n the Peak Cap. IG became the DGP and after 6 CPC was placed even ahead of our
Lt Gen. Similarly, in 1947, a joint secretary who was equivalent to a Major is
now equivalent to Major General. It seems the Govt is oblivious of the fact tha
t only one percent reaches the level of Maj Gen and point three percent Lt Gen.
Where as 100 percent direct entry IAS officers become Secretary/Additional Secre
tary. Mrs Librahan on NDTV stated wrongly that all IAS officers don t become Joint
secretaries. I would challenge her to prove me wrong. Also an IAS officer becom
es Joint Secretary in 14 - 16 years where as it takes 32 33 years of service for
any Army Officer to become a Major General.
(c) Till late sixties, the pension scales applicable to the defence officers we
re 50 percent of the pay, to JCOs and Others Ranks 75 percent and to central Gov
t civilian employees 33 percent. Thereafter, for reasons not known, the lobby, p
erhaps indifferent towards the Defence Forces succeeded in reducing the pension
of JCOs, ORs from 75 percent to 50 percent and increased that of the civilian em
ployees from 33 to 50 percent. This reduction and upgradation defies all logic.
The increase of pension of the civilian employees is not being grudged but why
decrease the pension of JCOs and other ranks who are forced to retire at the pri
me age of 35 to 45 years.
(d) Smt. Indra Gandhi in 1983 had accepted the demand of OROP but the bureauc
racy was able to stall it by not including it in the minutes of the meeting wh
ere decision was taken by PM.This was clearly stated by Comde Udhey Bhasker who
was recording the minutes of that meeting. Before it could be processed in 1984,
she was snatched away by destiny.
(e) Sh. KP Singh Deo Committee recommended OROP in 1984. While a few of the ot
her demands were accepted, the OROP was not sanctioned.
(f) Sh. Rajiv Gandhi in Feb 1987, promised to grant OROP but before any action
was taken on this, elections were announced. He unfortunately met with a tragic
end during the election period.
(g) Sh. VP Singh as PM had accepted the demand of OROP. When told that if ORO
P was granted to Defence Personnel, civilian employees will also demand the same
. He is on record having said, Let them (the civilian employees) swap places wit
h the Military , but before orders on OROP could be issued, his Govt fell.
(h) The Congress Govt in 1990 appointed a High Level Empowered Committee headed
by Sh. Sharad Pawar the then RM. This committee was keen to grant OROP but the
 Govt did not sanction it quoting prevailing economic conditions. However, one
time increase (OTI) in pension was given.
(j) Sh. IK Gujral as PM, accepted the demand of OROP but granted only modified
parity. After protests from ESM, OROP was accepted by the PM but before it cou
ld be sanctioned, the Govt fell in Nov 1997.
(k) Mr. George Fernandes the then Defence Minister announced at Anandpur Sahab
(Punjab) in Apr 1999 that OROP will be granted within a few days. Howerver, for
some reasons, the Govt did not sanction the same.
(l) Madam Sonia Gandhi the Chairperson of UPA on 23 Nov 2002 at CHANDIGARH duri
ng a rally, endorsed the demand for one-rank-one-pension, which was earlier stre
ssed upon by Punjab chief minister Captain Amarinder Singh at the North Zone Ex-
servicemen rally addressed by the Congress president at the Sector 46 sports com
plex. She said that if her party came to power, OROP would be given. Her party
came to power, but this promise remained unimplemented.
(m) Khurana Committee report recommended OROP in 2003. Para 99 of the Report o
f Standing Committee on Defence (2003) clearly states: "The Committee have been
recommending grant of `One Rank One Pension' to the armed forces personnel time
and again. The Committee observes that successive Governments and Pay Commission
s have made improvements in the pension structure keeping in view the cost of li
ving index. This has accentuated the disparity of pensionary benefits between pe
nsioners of the same rank. The older pensioners who have become infirm in abilit
y and capability and burdened with a larger social obligation receive pension ca
lculated at the rate of pay at the time of their retirement in 1950s or 1960s or
1970s, which is quite paltry and the Dearness Relief quite inconsequential in t
oday's context of inflation and shrinking purchasing value of money. The nation
must repay its debt to those defenders of the motherland with gratitude and humi
lity. We should, instead of, looking for precedents in this regard, create prece
dents for the 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"
(n) All Party Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence through its Chairman
Sh. Satpal Ji Maharaj on 07th May 2010 while tabling, its report in Parliament s
trongly recommended the grant of OROP holistically to the Defence Forces.
(o) Again on 27 Aug 2010 Chairman Standing Committee on Defence Sh. Satpal Ji M
aharaj strongly recommended the grant of OROP (Letter attached).
(p) OROP is being given to President, Vice President, MPs, MLAs, Judiciary, IAS
, IFS, IPS, DGPs and a few Defence officers ie Army Commanders, Vice Chiefs, Chi
ef of the Army and their equivalents. Why is the same being denied to Armed For
ces who are forced to retire at the age of 35 years onwards and are not being co
mpensated for it? The Defence Service is unique with highest degree of difficul
ty as compared to any other Govt service.
(q) SC Judgement of 09 Sep 2009 in the case of Union of India & Maj Gen Vains a
nd Others ruled:-
(i) No Defence Person Senior in rank can get less pension than his junior irres
pective of the date of retirement.
(ii) Similarly placed Officers of the same rank are to be given the same pensio
n irrespective of the date of retirement.
(r) AFT Chandigarh Judgement dated 03 Mar 2010. In the case of union of India
and Maj Gen Vains and Others. The AFT ruled that the SC ruling in the case of
Maj Gen Vains and others Vs Union of India dated 09 Sep 2009 pertaining to pre 1
996 and post 1996 retirees be applied to the Petitioners of pre 2006 and post 20
06 retirees also and the judgement be implemented in three months.
(s) AFT Chandigarh Judgement dated 08 Mar 2010 in the case of Union of India V
s Babu Ram Dhiman and Union of India Vs Sohan Singh The AFT has directed the Uni
on Government:-
(i) That the state cannot lay down different criteria for grant of pensions to
officers, JCOs and Jawans on the basis of cut off date of retirement.
(ii) No defence person of senior rank can draw less pension than his junior irre
spective of the date of retirement.
(iii) All pensioners of the same rank and service irrespective of the date of r
etirement are entitled to the same pension.
(iv) The above directions be implemented within four months.
(t) Representatives of all political parties have recommended OROP.
(u) The Punjab Assembly has recently unanimously passed a resolution strongly r
ecommending the OROP.
2. Hon ble Raksha Mantri Ji, the Parliament is Supreme in our democracy. The Def
ence Forces are under the Civilian Control which means under the elected represe
ntatives of the people. In the case of OROP, almost all the Prime Ministers, t
he Defence ministers, the empowered Committees of Ministers, all Party Parliame
ntary Committees on Defence and representatives of all political parties have be
en in favour of granting OROP to the Defence Forces because of the special servi
ce conditions, highest degree of difficulty, early retirement and job requiremen
ts.
3. It is not understood as to why a legitimate demand of Defence Forces has not
been accepted inspite of promises by the highest in the Govt since 1983. Are t
he Committees set up by the Govt consisting of only bureaucrats with no represen
tation from Defence Forces considered superior to the Committees of Parliament,
Group of Ministers, the Prime Minister and even the rulings of various courts in
favour of Defence Personnel? Have we changed the definition of civilian contr
ol of Armed Forces and delegated the same to the bureaucrats. There are the que
stions in the minds of Defence veterans.
4. We once again appeal to you to reconsider your decision and grant OROP to the
Defence Forces at the earliest.
With Regards,
Jai Hind
Yours Sincerely,
Maj Gen (Retd) Satbir Singh, SM
Vice Chairman Indian ESM Movement