I had an opportunity to meet the RRM on 16th at 1500 H; thanks to Brig RKS Gulia, the President IESL. Brig Gulia apprised the Minister of the IESL and the various problems that haunt the ESM community.
One point, he made that I would take the liberty to convey to you all, is for initiating periodic meetings with ESM community not only at the Center level but also at the State levels. IESL also presented a brief on the Cabinet Secretary’s (CS for short) Report of 30th June 2009.
In my turn, as I was given the opportunity to talk about our demand on pension, I focused on the two misperceptions on the part of the CS.
First; his concentrated effort to drive home the fact that OROP was not approved by the Courts and the Ministers in the past, was based purely on the wrong perception of the interpretation of OROP. He had relied on the Ministry of Law and Justice’s comment describing OROP as one rank one pension with no regard to the difference in the service rendered thereby the difference in the average emoluments that count for the pension. I categorically pointed out to the RRM that presenting that argument is purely to divert the attention on the correct definition of our demand for pension as ‘same pension for same rank with same years of qualifying service’.
Second; The CS has repeatedly equated the Armed Forces personnel with Civilian Government employees, in his report. I had highlighted to the RRM the various points to prove that there can never be any comparison leave alone equation. For details you may read my earlier mail on the ‘Analysis of CS’s Report’- click me
However, I focused on the arbitrary gradation of the pension of the various ranks and the drastic difference in the pension of the senior of pre 2006 vintage to that of post 2006 vintage.
The point I am trying to make to you is not for any appreciation from you, but for your reconsideration of our efforts to get our dues from the Government.
It is not what we want but what is projected to the Ministers on file that impresses the Minister and they take decisions on the basis of the information projected on the file. As we know that misinformation has been projected on the files over the decades, it is our bounden duty to replace the misinformation with the correct facts.
We have to produce facts and figures to justify our demand. Can we expect that the bureaucrats shall do it for us? Or, do we expect that the Ministers should do it for us, getting convinced of authenticity of our demand, just because that we make emotional demand?
My submission is that we should form a task force to work out the implications of the implementation of our demand both financial and administrative in nature and present it to the Minister to convince him of the feasibility, and preferably in one voice. In my opinion, it is only method by which we can get our dream of OROP in its true meaning realized.
Maj Gen RN Radhakrishnan (Retd)