Sunday, 8 November 2015

Light at the end of yet another tunnel? OROP

Press Information Bureau
Government of India
Ministry of Defence
07-November-2015 21:47 IST
Notification for Implementation of OROP Issued

The Government today issued the notification regarding  implementation of ‘One Rank One Pension’ in respect of Defence Forces  personnel.
Defence Forces of India have a rich history and tradition of bravery and gallantry. Defence forces have not only defend our borders with exemplary courage and valour but have also performed with fearless attitude and empathy in natural calamities and other trying circumstances. Government of India recognizes and respects their contribution.
The issue of One Rank One Pension was a long standing   demand. Defence Forces had been demanding it for almost four decades but the issue could not be resolved. However, Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi had made a commitment to implement it for the welfare of the ex-servicemen. Accordingly the Government had announced modalities for implementation of OROP on 05.09.2015.  The Government Order by Ministry of Defence, which could not be issued due to model code of conduct, has been issued today.

Salient features of the OROP as stated in the Order are as follows: 

                     I.        To begin with, pension of the past pensioners would be re-fixed on the basis of pension of retirees of calendar year 2013 and the benefit will be effective with effect from 1.7.2014. 

                   II.        Pension will be re-fixed for all pensioners on the basis of the average of minimum and maximum pension of personnel retiring in 2013 in the same rank and with the same length of service. 

                  III.        Pension for those drawing above the average shall be protected. 

                 IV.        Arrears will be paid in four equal half yearly instalments. However, all the family pensioners, including those in receipt of Special/Liberalized family pensioners, and Gallantry award winners shall be paid arrears in one instalment. 

                  V.        In future, the pension would be re-fixed every 5 years.

4. Personnel who opt to get discharged henceforth on their  own request under Rule 13(3)1(i)(b),13(3)1(iv) or Rule 16B of the Army Rule 1954 or equivalent Navy or Air Force Rules will not be entitled to the benefits of OROP. It will be effective prospectively.

5. The Govt. has decided to appoint a Judicial Committee to look into anomalies, if any, arising out of implementation of OROP. The Judicial Committee will submit its report in six months.  

6.    Detailed instructions along with tables indicating revised pension for each rank and each category, shall be issued separately for updation of pension and payment of arrears directly by Pension Disbursing Agencies. 

The previous Government had made a budget announcement to implement the OROP and made a provision of Rs 500  Crore.   The present Government undertook the task earnestly and realized that the actual additional annual expenditure would be eight to ten thousand crore at present and will increase further in future.   Notwithstanding the financial constraints, true to its commitment the present Government has issued the Government order to implement the OROP in true spirit.

Sitanshu Kar/


  1. Why are we jumping the gun? Detailed instruction alongwith tables are yet to be issued! May be they will be vetted before issue!

    1. My one-sided twitter conversation with a query, on an old source of anxiety, which will probably never be answered by Shri Kar or resolved by the "detailed instructions" that are to follow.

  2. Your query "No one retired in 2013 w rank/service mix of Maj/Lt Col/26yrs+. What about older retirees who did?"

    My analysis, they will be paid the maximum of the pension for the rank of Maj or Lt Col) for maximum service as long as their pension amount does not exceed the beginning of the scale of Lt Col or Col respectively. They will not be paid the same pension you have been advocating i.e Lt Col's pension for Major and Col's pension for Lt Cols with 26 plus years of service then it become two ranks same pension.

    But this is my analysis.

  3. Sir, my reading is the max pay on current Maj and Lt Col scales would yield no significant extra pension under #OROP for older Maj/Lt Col retirees. I foresee recourse to the judicial commission or litigation unless ESM associations and services HQs had taken cognizance and ensured some resolution in advance. Looks doubtful, though.

  4. In Kshirsagar Vs UoI, the Courts have held that Services HQ may determine the promotion policy.

    Then there are statutory Pension Rules. I doubt if the Judicial Commission or the Courts will entertain any litigation unless a discrimination based on some untenable criteria can be placed on record.

  5. Sir, the untenable criterion is the length of service put in in a certain cadre in context of how a time-bound rank is attained with varying sevice-lengths at different dates. An officer put in 20 years of service and at the time could only get a Maj rank based on length of service. Another one with the same service could at a later date get the time-bound rank of Lt Col. The older Maj not getting the latter Lt Col's pension is outright discrimination. These are not promotions by selection that are involved. I do find a lot of substance in opinions I have read that such parities need to be applied not just to OROP but to pensions wef 01 Jan 2006 as recently implemented.

  6. Thank you Brig Vidyasagar. Your analysis is thoghtful, incisive and understandable to us who have not done much study except from the motivated rubbish that the Media churns out. I am better informed. Please continue the good work and don't get into a slanging match with the cacaphonous group, which in any case makes no sense to me. Initially I also spent a lot of time at JM and even paid contributions along with my other CMs. But now the Gen makes no sense to me and I have opted out.

  7. Sir,

    Brig Vidyasagar's letter to Col Latif appears to have disappeared as mysteriously as it appeared and after Gp Capt O P Sateesh's impassioned defence.

    IESM pioneered surrendering medals and Maj Gen Satbir was leading (well, just behind Lt Gen Kadyan) when they handed over their medals to then President and had that photo splashed all over. Ironically, Kadyan and, more ironcally, Satbir still have those awards suffixed to their names. Satbit has gone a step ahead and his email address is Talking in forked tongue!

    In that rejuvenated website at there is no mention of its registration or the accounting for the myriad contributions made in the recent past, not even a paise!

    Koshiyari Committee never mentions maximum of the pay scale or pay band but some one in the Gov Body of IESM has thought that one up, to stay in the fading limelight.

    It mentions, as noted elsewhere in this blog, that Army & Air Force reps stated at the Committee's hearings that a five-yearly review was agreeable. So again a red herring by IESM.

    Thirdly, the pay wizard appears to have blanked his mind to the fact that pensions of retirees will remain the same in the tenure of a Pay Commission. An officer retiring with 25 years service in 2006 or 2013 will draw the same pension because he started at the same level in the pay band. In fact, going by the tables of SAI 2/S/2008, an officer in service on 1.1.2006 and retiring thereafter will draw lesser total emoluments (other than DA) as has been shown in the tables elsewhere in this blog.

    IESM is now just trying to stay relevant by bombast and subterfuge.

    Will they publish the accounts of the spending of our contributions on personal expenses in their recent jaunts?

    1. Yes I agree. However, the focus should be on issues and not on one group against the other and who is right and who is not. This will divert us from the task of educating and highlighting to our veterans the grain from the chaff. Slanging is going to lead us nowhere. As soon as the tables are out and money starts pouring into bank accouts, most will desert and lose interest in the various groups. It will be better possible to separate the signal from the noise and divert focus to the anomalies that are bound to surface.

    2. Sir, a small issue wrt the annual increment I can only say that the initial fixation of BP within the scale was made by considering 3%increment for each year in the rank. But the increment was calculated based only on the minimum of the scale and excluded Grade pay as not existing prior 6CPC. However, the annual increment later calculated includes Grade pay thus leading to difference in increments for people already in the rank as on 01 Jan 2006 and those achieving it later or for that matter the junior in the same rank having same years of service. For example, a Lt Col with 10 yrs service would have got 10 increments of Rs 1120 each @ 3%of 37400 while increment due on 01 Jul 2006 was Rs 1400= 1156 (3% of 38520) + 240 (3% of 8000 GP) since all Lt Col were fixed with one increment at Rs 38520. The second increment was still higher Rs 1440=1200 (3% of 39920) +240 (3% of 80000)> thus Thus a Lt Col retiring with 2 yrs service as on 01 jan 2006 would have had a BP of Rs 40760 (38520+2 incr of 1120 each) while a Lt Col retiring on 01 jul 2007 would have a BP of Rs 41360 ( incr of Rs1400 +1440) or a difference of Rs 600 in two years and increasing every year would be applicable to all Lt Cols with same yrs of service but retiring on different dates. Considering that all personnel who retire before had their pension fixed based on initial fitment tables, the OROP would mean the person retiring later would draw higher pension.

    3. Smaller correction - if you read SAI/2/2008 (Para 7 (a) (i) it states The pay in the relevant pay band/pay scale will be determined by multiplying the existing basic pay and rank pay as on 01 Jan 2006 by a factor of 1.86 and rounding off the resultant figure to the next multiple if 10.

      The 3% increment is for fixation of Pay on Promotion after 01 Jan 2006 - Para 12 refers.

      The person retiring later will have a higher pension only because he has more service.

      By the way those whose pay was fixed after 1.9.2008 start at Rs 37400 compared to Rs 38530 of those whose pay was fixed on 1.1.2006. Please reply to Sainathan's comment in the IESM Gov

  8. Sorry to say but why this sudden anti Satbir tirade. What do you expect him to do. What he is doing no general has done or will ever do. All of us have different understanding of the OROP problem. I will take some given above. Brig Vidyasagar has a view on annual equalisation and he refutes that Koshiyari Report does not say so ? Sir read Para 3 of the report and the keyword 'automatically' passed on to the pensioner and uniform pension with same rank& service. In the little bit of angrezi I know from my govt school, means that it is same pension for same rank with same service(rank weightages to be thrown in for pre 1.9.08). Problem of generating physical ppo - we talk of digital india on one hand and physical ppo on the other. Online is the answer. Crores of Bank Accts are currently functioning online?? Tables when generated will be based on inputs from across all three services. Leave aside Satbir, will Major Singh pay from his pocked to travel to various places to take forward the movement. Please do not become the opposition so soon!! There is a lot of work which has gone into the movement. I may at this moment do not agree with what is happening, but there maybe saner views? Let the tables be out.

  9. Much as supporters of Satbir sing his praise, one would expect others to express their views, note necessarily being a tirade.

    Read Para 6.4 and Para 6.5 wherein the Army and Air Force agreed to a revision once in 5 years and not annual equalisation.

    In the JWG meeting of 02 May 2014, the Chairman PARC suggested an annual review of the OROP tables.

    To the best of my knowledge, Services HQ have been kept out of the preparations of tables. Army has PCDA (O) and Navy the NPO and Air Force the AFCAO but tables are being prepared by CGDA - the auditor and implementing agency (conflict of interest!).

    Generating PPOs, - bureaucracy is still what it is. An original copy of the PPO is sent to the Bank/PDA and only a copy of the PPO is with the pensioners. Hence, talk of digital India is just that talk because many of the ESM/widows may not have computers or internet etc and how would you remedy that situation? Will you travel, like you ask about Maj Singh, and hand over a digital copy to each of them.

    A majority of ESM and widows do not reside in the grand NCR region and are not able to be present daily at the Jantar Mantar darbar. So, you would be shocked, that in your digital India on the website the most recent entries are of some years ago. IESM does not let us know the logic behind the different points of disagreement; IESM does not let us know what or why, with facts that we will understand and quoting documents so that we may educate ourselves why the Govt is such an ass and why IESM alone is the fountain of wisdom. Nowhere has IESM mentioned that JCOs benefit the least from OROP and giving reasons, why else would the JCOs have their own sit in strike area?

  10. Pse add to ibid comment in public debate :-Seen enough of COS ,GOM ,AVS...etc committees and commissions with obvious intentions. Simply ,lack of earnestness or honest intentions.

  11. #taaza khabar. Equalisation is an issue which can easily b resolved by mutual consent. AF Army reps did agree to a 5 yr periodicity but the concept/defi of orop suggests otherwise. CGDA may prepare tables but input comes fm resp pension paying offices. With 2013 as nodal yr there is very little leeway cgda has in compiling table. As bank accts function so will pensions if digital India has to take place. As for jcos getting very little benefit of orop - their gap was bridged in 2012 /13 after committee of secretaries approved near orop for them. So why the worry. PBOR benefitted then offrs will benefit now. This has not been understood by the environment.

    1. Sir,
      Permit me to place the facts correctly. Army & Air Force representatives suggested a 5 yearly revision (Para 6.4 and 6.5).

      On the other hand, Govt (DESW/Deptt of Expenditure et al) projected all the hurdles in implementing OROP.

      The observations/recommendations of the Koshiyari is at Para 11 after all submissions/depositions were heard.

      The Govt's submissions/depositions were rejected by the Committee.

      Nowhere, I repeat, Nowhere in Para 11 has the Koshiyari Committee recommended any periodic revision or equalisation, whether annual, bi-annual (as demanded by ESM organisations quoting the Report) nor 5 yearly as stated by MoD in its order dated 07 Nov 2015.

      That led me to the conclusion that once a service/retirement/family pension is determined for the same rank and same years of qualifying service, then there is no need for any revision until the next Pay Commission. This enhancement has been covered in the definition date 22 Feb 2014, the announcement of RM on 05 Sep 2015 and in the order dated 07 Nov 2015.

      Finally, truth must prevail. The Circulars 501 and 547 only benefit JCOs/Petty Officers/Warrant Ranks. They DO NOTbenefit Seps, Naiks and Havildars & equivalents.