tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5780881198603853530.post1660025591464800230..comments2024-02-08T19:00:06.509+05:30Comments on Aerial View : Fifth & Concluding Part of File Notings that led to OROP Letter dated 7.11.2015Aerial Viewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17115360943663046368noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5780881198603853530.post-27210865780932293402018-03-19T10:04:12.110+05:302018-03-19T10:04:12.110+05:30Query 2 (a) - the CGDA has actually led the DESW u...Query 2 (a) - the CGDA has actually led the DESW up the garden path.<br /><br />(b) The minutes of the Working Group meetings were not provided and is the subject of the First Appeal.<br /><br />(c) The equalisation (of what) every 5 years was suggested by the Army Rep to the Koshyari Committee.<br /><br />The PMR exclusion, said Mr Parrikar to me personally on 8/10/15, was because some ESM of Harayana boasted to Shri Modi then BJP i/c about how they are earning in millions compared to a few thousands if they continued in Service. <br /><br />Notional pension calculations were available from 2014 in the Rank Pay case and hence it was the CGDA that spearheaded the case. However, in a briefing note to the Lok Sabha, available on the internet, some Armed Forces officers objected to One pension because they had more residual service in the rank and would stand to lose. Hence average pension with protection for those earning higher than the average,<br /><br />As for 419/2016, I hope it is not using the submissions to the Koshyari Committee as its foundation. Elsewhere in this blog I have brought out the documented facts that run counter to the submissions to the Committee.<br /><br />And, ah, it is not OMJC but just Judicial Commission as per Cab Sec Note!<br /><br />Jai Hind <br /> Aerial Viewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17115360943663046368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5780881198603853530.post-49789669925663136292018-03-15T22:30:14.542+05:302018-03-15T22:30:14.542+05:30Dear Sir,
1. At the very outset thanks a ton for ...Dear Sir,<br />1. At the very outset thanks a ton for your perseverance and stupendous effort in getting such voluminous and revealing information.<br />2. The following still remains a mystery:<br /> (a) The repeated insistence and concern of MoF (DoE) for implementation of OROP as announced by the Govt in Parliament and issued in a letter form during UPA and a legally tenable modalities have been cunningly circumvented at a very crucial stage. Going by the queries of MoF, the usual gang of Section Offr, USs and Dy Secys of MoD took over the case completely and wrote what they wanted to in the Cabinet Note.<br /> (b) What was the final recommendation of the so called Working Group, Service reps agreement to the final proposal etc are not really discernible.<br /> (c) The final blow of excluding PMR cases and implementation from prospective date, artificial base years, methodology of calculation of notional pension or fixation of pension and equalisation of once in five years are whose brain child is still not clear. Draft Cabinet Note should have been ideally vetted by Wkg Gp. Looks like due to PMO's pressure and in that guise a lot of damage has been done.<br />3. At the end , it becomes clear that some bridging the pension between past and present pensioners have been done purely for implementation of AFT/HC/SC judgements and the same has been coined as OROP. The fate of OMJC recommendations would remain another mystery like Hendersons report in the great MoD.<br />4. Looks like only relief is SC judgement in the ongoing WP(C) 419/2016 in SC IESM Vs UoI which is tentatively slated for hearing on 02 Apr 18. The present implementation of so called One Rank Many Pensions and other stipulated conditions/scheme of implementation will not stand legal scrutiny of even a District Court leave alone SC.<br />Truth Alone Triumps<br />Regards once again for the singular effort, God Bless your tribe. Young50https://www.blogger.com/profile/01913060012512701010noreply@blogger.com